On Nov 10, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2012, at 21:33, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: > >>> 3. Lets discuss how we want to describe the content "in-image" >>> for "serving on the web". Maybe with a "Markup to HTML translator" >>> - or a "WikiStyle to HTML" like help >> >> I want to use the pier syntax because I know that I can generate the correct >> latex >> with it for the books, and of course any kind of html and other formats. > > I vote for Markdown, it is more like a defacto standard.
I prefer pier since I can convert all the book macros (and I cannot do that in markdown). I'm spending so much time writing that at least I want the result to look more than a bad documentation. > And you can convert Markdown into anything, there exit tons of tools for it. > > Remember that I sent you my Zinc & Zodiac docs converted to Latex ? Were they > no good ? It depends at which level. Can you tag on word in markdown to have bold, italic, index? If I would not have written 350 pages of seaside book with pier it would be a different story but so far pier syntax is good for doing everything: html, latex, even markdown. > -- > Sven Van Caekenberghe > http://stfx.eu > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > > > >
