On 31 October 2011 14:57, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartma...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's nothing wrong with HTML documentation per se, and it sure is not > worse than ASCII. Why do you believe roff is better than HTML? Just pipe the > markup through htmlfmt(1) or html2text(1) if you like reading documentation > on terminal emulators. And as long as the markup > is terse, reading marked up text is perfectly acceptable.
Roff is actually one of the ugliest markup languages I have ever seen. HTML is actually pretty decent if you think about it. It's (more-or-less) XML, which isn't nice, but I'd take that over roff any day. Anyway, the main problem with the web is the obsession with CSS and JavaScript. On 31 October 2011 15:04, pancake <panc...@youterm.com> wrote: > Markdown is the only decent option for documentation. A part from a .docx Markdown is great to use, but iirc has no well-defined syntax, which makes it difficult to parse efficiently. cls
