JC Helary writes: > > I have to say I'm not convinced that defining a new markup language is > > a good idea. My issue with this is that the markup language is only > > part of the equation. Possibly of more importance is a suitable > > authoring environment. > > Sure, but typing docbook markup is not exactly the most exciting part > of writing documentation. > There are pseudo html markup for "writers" that automatically produce > html through Perl for ex.
This is my point. You can get docbook/xml editors which allow you to write documentation just like using a word processor i.e. you don't even need to know any docbook markup or you can get editors and add-on modes that put all of that in menus and short-cut keys. Its unlikely you will have any of this with a new non-standards based markup language. > > I write a lot of html by hand and I know I'd love to have a simple > way to write formatting/structure information. And I really don't > care much about the output as long as the input is simple enough for > my fingers. > > Plus it's got to have a lisp like syntax otherwise it won't work > nicely for people who are user to write a lot of lisp. Well, I don't > really know about that but I figure that it would just be like typin/ > applying functions to strings. > You can achieve that with existing markup - especially XML based markup like docbook. Write your XML as s-expressions and then have a processor which turns it into standard docbook XML. this would give the best of both worls - those who want to use a high level editor can and those who prefer to write at a lower level and doing the xml manually could use the s-exp style which is then processed into xml. Tim _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
