[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Question about bug 8206

From: Thomas Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Question about bug 8206
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:37:52 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060808)

Terminology bug, sorry.   s/docbook/doxygen  (which, actually i thought used
docbook as an intermediate but, apparently not).


Miles Bader wrote:
Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
(3) It's nice if the doc sources are reasonably attractive as plain
text.  And then derive all the formats you like from that.  Which
would suggest I should be a bigger docbook fan than I actually am but
I'm not (as a source text form), so there.

Eh, how does that follow?  Docbook sources are horribly ugly -- they're
_so_ verbose that it's often quite a chore to even find the underlying
text for all the layers of (verbose) tagging.  I've never written a
document in docbook, but for the same reason it looks like pure drudgery
to write if you're not using rather heavy editor magic.

I would never consider docbook an acceptable source form as long as
people expect to able to reasonably edit the sources as raw text.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]