Terminology bug, sorry. s/docbook/doxygen (which, actually i thought
used
docbook as an intermediate but, apparently not).
-t
Miles Bader wrote:
Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(3) It's nice if the doc sources are reasonably attractive as plain
text. And then derive all the formats you like from that. Which
would suggest I should be a bigger docbook fan than I actually am but
I'm not (as a source text form), so there.
Eh, how does that follow? Docbook sources are horribly ugly -- they're
_so_ verbose that it's often quite a chore to even find the underlying
text for all the layers of (verbose) tagging. I've never written a
document in docbook, but for the same reason it looks like pure drudgery
to write if you're not using rather heavy editor magic.
I would never consider docbook an acceptable source form as long as
people expect to able to reasonably edit the sources as raw text.
-Miles
|
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
