Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > LaTeX, for all the tool requirements, is a fairly light-weight markup > language. Yes, it has too many special characters. But someone else > invented it, and I'm not keen on inventing any more than we have to.
"someone else invented it" is of course why I'm advocating an HTML- based format. There's a huge infrastructure, both on the tool side and on the spec side, that deals with (X)HTML. And *everyone* knows how to write HTML. > nothing special, just using presentation markup directly: > This prevents even simple information re-use. Conventions can help, but > require a careful eye on the part of editors (possibly with tools to help). > > something like HTML, but with "microformat" style annotations: > More reasonable, especially if we rely on conventions and stylesheets for > presentation. I expect the markup will actually be much heavier than the > current markup, though it will be somewhat more familiar to someone when > they first look at it. Adding in the annotations changes that a bit. Light annotations plus simple conventions (with corresponding simple tools) should be more than good enough to match the current level. > docbook, because others use that: > This is really heavy, but tools exist. The last I looked at the OOP > extensions, they were fairly simple, but not well matched to Python. > > ReST, possibly with additional interpreted text roles: > This has been explored in the past, and would likely not be a bad approach. > As noted above, I expect non-support for nested markup in docutils to be a > problem that will become evident fairly quickly. > > All that said, I think this discussion belongs on the Doc-SIG; I've CC'd that > list. The doc-sig didn't look too active when I checked the archives, but maybe it's time to change that. </F> _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
