On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:16:54AM -0500, Jeff Epler wrote: > Personally, I'd go for option B. Both AsciiDoc and ReST have a lot of > users. In particular I recently learned that the Python project > transitioned from LaTeX to ReST for all their documentation. Their > HTML and PDF documentation look better than ever, while the source code > is also very readable as plain text. Here's one short example (this is the > *source code* for the documentation, not a file that it produces as output!):
AsciiDoc looks very simple to write. No harder than wiki markup to learn. With a cheat sheet it would be simple (and I found a cheat sheet) http://powerman.name/doc/asciidoc On the AsciiDoc home page you can see sample PDF output: http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/#_example_articles At first glance this looks like a really good solution to me. I found AsciiDoc information before I found reST and I'm not sure what the differences are. But it looks like they both solve the same problems. Further, I volunteer to do some of the busy work of reformatting the docs. I have so far avoided doing more than trivial work in the documentation because of my impatience with/aversion to learning LyX. Something ASCII-based would be a huge improvement for me personally. However a glance in CVS tells me that John T and F Tisserant are our most active doc writers, so their preferences are more important than mine. Similarly I know that Jeff will get stuck doing the doc-building infrastructure so I take his preference seriously too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
