On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 09:47, Rocco Rutte wrote: > I think we should rethink or at least put lots of manpower into > documentation prior to 1.6 since I think 1.6 will (again) be out several > years before 1.8. At least people seem to stick with stable mutt > releases for quite some time. > > The manual is in large parts just a reference only so I think we should > re-organize its sections and rewrite some parts from scratch (I know > that talk is cheap and somebody has to do it, but unless there's > consensus on the problem here, I'm not willing to put any work into it). > WIth Brendan switching to hg prior to 1.6, hacking on a rewrite in a > separate branch with several developers would be easy and efficient I > hope. > > Also, I think the current way of creating it is not very optimal since I > (still) consider DocBook a format which is to be generated by machines, > not written by humans (please no flamewar on that one! :) > > Just a very stupid idea: why not play with asciidoc a little? It should > do all what we want, we could finally simplify makedoc a lot and still > get all output we want. Plus: the manual would be much easier to hack > on, much smaller in size, etc. With some XSLT magic I think it could be > more or less easy to create an initial asciidoc-based document. I'm for it. About halfway through your email I thought I was going to have to write a 'why not asciidoc?' response :) I don't have the cycles to work on the conversion right now, but if anyone else wants to have a go, I'd be very receptive.
Description: PGP signature