Re: doc source format -- rationale
On 12/15/06, Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:
{snip}
Yes. XML is the way to go for the future.
{snip}
But at the same time, wiki is nice tool to write such documents.
Aye, there's the rub. XML is great because it's very regular, and the
tools are there, but at the same time, it's one of the ugliest to
write and read in source form. Wiki's tend to be the easiest for
humans to work with, but the syntax can be ambiguous (especially if
you try to shoehorn in too much syntax for numerous features).
Though not relevant here, my personal preference is for formats that
mix the two a little bit. That is, provide some shortcuts for the
common stuff (like blank lines to separate paragraphs), but then still
be rigorous enough to not have any ambiguity. The idea being, if it's
easier to read and write in my text editor, then I'm more apt to like
doing it. :)
That's one of the reasons why Texinfo appeals to me.
Really, issues about whether or not backends support Unicode and UTF-8
encoded files is secondary, since all these tools should (if not
already) eventually be updated to work with them, regardless.
Incidentally, the Texinfo tools can generate xml (texinfo.dtd) as well
as Docbook output.
---John
Reply to: