On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:12:45PM +0200, Andreas Tille <til...@rki.de> was heard to say: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Daniel Burrows wrote: > >> I would prefer Restructured Text, for the simple reason that it has an >> actual specification with a fairly complete description of its syntax >> and semantics. > > I do not have practical experience with both and so I do not have > any preference. The only thing I'f fear is that we might loose track > in finally solving the problem in discussing which library to use. > So do you think I should try to switch from markdown to reST in the > debug output project?
I hesitate to tell you what to do, since I'm not the one doing the work. But I think it would be worthwhile to at least prototype both options and see how they stack up. I also should say that I only have practical experience with Markdown (except that I've edited Wikis occasionally and some of them use RST); the alternative looks better to me, but it's easy to say that when I haven't actually used it. :-) > For those who are interested: At > > http://blends.debian.net/debug/tasks/ Wow, that's a lot of work! I certainly won't ask you to do it all over again. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org