Steve Holden wrote: > Laura Creighton wrote: > >>Whenever people have demanded that I write documentation in html >>I have always done this: >> >><pre> >>all my documentation, as output from a text editor. >> >>All subsequent formatting to be done by somebody else who doesn't >>find dealing with html as excruciatingly painful as I do. >></pre> >> >>I suspect there are lots of people who have concluded that this >>is all the html that you really need. The question is, are you >>willing to put up with documentation like this from people? >> > > Well the existing system can cope with that style, but for some reason > the oft-repeated advice that plain text markup is an acceptable format > for documentation contributions doesn't seem to have escaped the gravity > field. So that's just as good for the existing docs as anything that > replaces them (if anything does).
Hmmm... I submitted some plain text (might have been reST actually) docs as a suggested addition to urllib2. The response from the maintainer) was that I ought to submit it as patches against the original Tex document. Now admittedly what I submitted *does* need breaking into smaller sections to make it easier to add to fit into the docs. (IIRC the error classes are barely documented in urllib2 - vital information is missing from the docs). *However* - there was no implication that the maintainer was happy to work with plain text submissions. All the best, Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml > regards > Steve _______________________________________________ Doc-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
