On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:36:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > I have now updated the README docs with a slightly cleaner > work-flow. I would like to get a show of hands from the policy team > about this; and if people are OK with this approach (using org-mode, > with perhaps me committing to maintaining these documents in the > team), or abandoning this approach and going to plain old > HTML/docbook. It is not realistic to expect you to maintain upgrading-checklist.org. It is less a problem for Process.org and README.org since they change less often. > Personally, I think that the .org files are easier to edit, even for > people who are unfamiliar with org-mode, and are mroe readable than > SGML based documents, and thus would have higher utility, but I'll > abide with what the rest of the team thinks. Please find a SGML version of upgrading-checklist. This generate much nicer upgrading-checklist.txt and has other advantage as well: 1) no generated files in VCS 2) no hidden build dependencies 3) less risk of content being interpreted as formatting (e.g. /etc/ means etc in italic for org-mode), which was a big issue with the upgrading-checklist.org before I fixed .org file while writing the .sgml one, but there might still be problems. 4) no need to learn yet another mark-up language 5) upgrading-checklist.org look really ugly under less. Now, I agree that the SGML formatting is a bit verbose but if we decide to use a markup language, we should pick one where the set of 'active' characters is limited. org-mode has way to much of them. Cheers, -- Bill. <firstname.lastname@example.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Description: Digital signature