+1 for DocBook.
On 14 June 2011 17:56, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 14 Jun 2011, at 17:48, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > >> On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:45, Jens Rantil wrote: >> >>> Is really writing documentation XML the best we can come up with? How about >>> using 'pandoc' (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) to write documentation >>> in restructuredText, markdown or textile instead? They are all way easier >>> to read and write for newcomers. >> >> They are also not capable of structuring documentation exhaustively. I hate >> XML as much as the next guy, but MC's doc system is really slick and not as >> bad once the basic infrastructure is in place (I'll show it soon, promised). > > Documentation source format is a bike shed. > > DocBook is the industry standard and I will veto any "plain text" alternative. > > I would suggest we use HTML, but it would be nice to be able to convert the > documentation into multiple formats as we will be shipping it with CouchDB.
