Re: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)

[forcer <forcer at mindless dot com>]

Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> thi wrote:
> > i think a reasonable approach deflecting proponents of neither format
> > would be to develop interoperable munchers that can recast from one to
> > the other.  luckily, someone posted recently that they were working on
> > such a system -- i wonder how's that going?
> 
> That would be cool, though it would still be preferrable to have everything
> in the Guile core in one format for the sake of consistency.

If i find the time to dig through the texinfo sources, i have the
definite plans to add --docbook format to makeinfo. Mind the if,
though...

Oh, and just to add a vote: I'm all for TeXinfo, Docbook is
mostly hype. O'Reilly uses DocBook for their books, though - i
know someone who's writing a book for them, and he's always
enraged about the ``html-like idiotic crap''. <>-Tags were never
intented to be written by humans, but writing function
documentation (inline) with them requires you to use an editor
that can handle both texts in one file. Emacs can, but always
switching between modes isn't the best thing i can imagine ;)
TeXinfo is much more type-friendly.

Hmm... i was about to post a mail about the planned docbook
format for documentation, but thought i made enough people angry
so far, and don't want to start yet another holy war. Seems
someone else did that for me ;)

Since Guile is a GNU project, and TeXinfo is the GNU
documentation system, i think TeXinfo is the better choice
anyways. But why not ask RMS about what would be the choice for
new GNU projects?
	-- forcer

-- 
((email . "forcer@mindless.com")       (www . "http://forcix.cx/")
 (irc   . "forcer@#StarWars (IRCnet)") (gpg . "/other/forcer.gpg"))