I personally don't have a problem writing Docbook, and one problem with moving to lightweight markup is it becomes a bit harder to keep your markup semantic.
Edward Excerpts from Herbert Valerio Riedel's message of 2014-10-07 09:20:43 -0600: > Hello GHC Developers & GHC User's Guide writers, > > I assume it is common knowledge to everyone here, that the GHC User's > Guide is written in Docbook XML markup. > > However, it's a bit tedious to write Docbook-XML by hand, and the XML > markup is not as lightweight as modern state-of-the-art markup languages > designed for being edited in a simple text-editor are. > > Therefore I'd like to hear your opinion on migrating away from the > current Docbook XML markup to some other similarly expressive but yet > more lightweight markup documentation system such as Asciidoc[1] or > ReST/Sphinx[2]. > > There's obviously some cost involved upfront for a (semi-automatic) > conversion[3]. So one important question is obviously whether the > long-term benefits outweight the cost/investment that we'd incur for the > initial conversion. > > All suggestions/comments/worries welcome; please commence brainstorming :) > > > > [1]: http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/ > > [2]: http://sphinx-doc.org/ > > [3]: There's automatic conversion tools to aid (though manual cleanup > is still needed) the initial conversion, such as > > https://github.com/oreillymedia/docbook2asciidoc > > As an example, here's the conversion of > > > http://git.haskell.org/ghc.git/blob/HEAD:/docs/users_guide/extending_ghc.xml > > to Asciidoc: > > https://phabricator.haskell.org/P24 > > to give an idea how XML compares to Asciidoc _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
