Ken Hornstein wrote:
This illustrates _exactly_ my feelings about documentation formats.
Basically, I don't give a shit about 90% of the worthless crap that
these systems do (yeah, I'm going to be writing a WHOLE LOT of theorems
in the Kerberos FAQ); what I want is a simple layout that looks
[remainder of rant deleted]
Three points:
1. My message was information and an offer of help. It wasn't even a
recommendation. If you don't want it, don't take it. You don't need to
unload a bunch of attitude on me.
2. The theorem example was just that, an example. Would you be less
annoyed if the roles were FAQ-specific stuff like 'question' and
'answer'? With a little work, the subset of DocBook you'd have to know
would be *tiny*, and the subset of LaTeX you'd have to know would be *zero*.
3. The lesson that logical markup is better than visual has only been
learned ten gazillion times. If you're happy with HTML markup, great.
But it's not like this is an open question.
Steve
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
