Greetings. On 31.10.2011 15:57, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:34:10 -0000, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: >> Martin Kopta wrote: >>> Proposal: 6. It has useful documentation. >> >> Now bureaucracy begins. What documentation? A manpage should suffice, >> when it reaches 1.0. I think it's already sucking, if a project really >> needs a webbrowser to be opened for the documentation. >> > 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.
»And as long as the markup is terse« is a never fulfilled requirement. But surely, extending roff with runtime shellscripts will extend its usefulness. It's like Qt vs. plain C – redundancy vs. lean code. Sincerely, Christoph Lohmann