On 27 January 2017 at 06:51, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > "What can we cut" is the wrong question. The right one is "what are our > requirements". Here's my try: > > HTML: required > nroff with an macros: required > PDF: wanted (try printing a website) > plain text: nice to have (for me personally, more than that) > info: nice to have > > If a solution we like can't provide something that's nice to have, we > can decide to take it anyway. > > If a solution we like can provide something that's nice to have, we > should let it provide, unless it turns out to be a drag.
Well, every extra documentation format: * increases the build time * increases the chances of makefile bugs * may require extra tooling to produce * either requires us to check it for problems or increases the chance of confusing users because that output format has a formatting problem that doesn't happen in the doc formats most people use * may require significant extra work to produce something that's actually useful: a manpage and an info doc aren't just the same content in a different file format, they should have definitely different contents and structure to fit what people expect a manpage or an info doc to be So my list is: * HTML: required * PDF: nice-to-have thanks -- PMM
