OK, to kick this thread around:
It seems like several people who touch the users guide are in favor of
this due to:
- Simpler markup
- DocBook compatibility
- Hopefully attracting more users if it's easier to manage.
Cons:
- +1 Dependency (minor)
- No formal grammar (I don't think it
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
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
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].
My opinion is that I don't really care. I only edit the User Guide once
Same here. My interaction with the user guide is infrequent enough that it
doesn't matter much to me.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Jan Stolarek jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl
wrote:
Therefore I'd like to hear your opinion on migrating away from the
current Docbook XML markup to some other
On 2014-10-08 at 10:49:33 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote:
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].
My opinion is that
does asciidoc have a formal grammar/syntax or whatever? i'm trying to look
up one, but can't seem to find it.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel hvrie...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2014-10-08 at 10:49:33 +0200, Jan Stolarek wrote:
Therefore I'd like to hear your opinion on
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
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Edward Z. Yang ezy...@mit.edu wrote:
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
Why would this be a problem with asciidoc? All asciidoc
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Austin Seipp aus...@well-typed.com wrote:
The more annoying bit is it will incur an extra dependency for GHC
documentation - which, remember, is part of ./validate - but that's
life, perhaps.
Docbook is a fairly large dependency in my experience?
--
brandon
Just for the record - I'm very much in favor of this. +1 from me.
I think the one-time cost is very low for the most part, if the end
result is a significantly more readable users guide to hack on.
IMO, I don't particularly care whether we use Sphinx or AsciiDoc. The
nice thing about AsciiDoc
I don't really care too much about the size of the dependency (since
99.9% of time it's automated anyway via some package manager). My
remark was more referring to the number of dependencies increases by 1
no matter what. :)
But like I said, that's just life, and I frankly don't see this part
as
11 matches
Mail list logo
