On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:19 PM, John Gabriele <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd like to suggest that, as part of whatever package format is chosen > (I'll assume "Snow/snowball/snowfort" for the following discussion), > that the presence of a README file (written in some format easily > convertible to html ([Pandoc's enhanced Markdown][1] would be my > suggestion)) be a requirement.
As pointed out, we don't want to enforce a documentation format. On the other hand, a common format does make it easier to keep the style consistent and display the docs directly on the site. As a compromise, the tools can directly support certain common formats (markdown, html, scribble) and for other formats the publisher can just generate html before uploading. Note third parties can supply their own documentation for libraries, including translated versions of the original. > (BTW, after writing this message, I'm liking the name "Snow" more and > more. For example, it would be fun to read about "heavy snowfall this > month!" (large number of snowballs added/updated), In fact, we're about to enter an ice age :) > Would uploading a snowball with the same name > as an existing one lead to a snowball fight? :) ) Maybe we can use "snowball fight" instead of golfing? And snow angels for test suites? -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
