> Some really good stuff in there. When I was thinking about fixing the > problem, I was reminded that neither I, nor most people new to the community, > know RST at all. In most environments, when people are documenting code for > extraction, they're using markdown. I am not going to take the time to learn > a failed, more complex system, nor are most people.
I don't think that RST can be called as _failed_ or _more complex_. And as a person, who wrote numerous documents with Markdown, RST and some with AsciiDoc, I must admit that RST is most feature-complete and most readable in raw form - it is very clear and usable even without syntax highlighting. Everybody can judge it by yourself by looks on Python or Linux documentation ( _failed_ , as You said)... >From other hand, AsciiDoc is almost unreadable at source level, but has a big >advantage for illustrating programming examples - a code callouts, thus I >understood, why Araq choose that format for a Nim book.
