Re: A very simple documentation framework
Sorry for responding late...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:05:07 -0500, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 06:11:58AM -0500, cga2000 wrote:
>> So far my personal doc system amounts to a patchwork of notes and
>> cheat sheets in ascii files that I grep when I need to find some piece
>> of information or other.
>>
>> I would like to switch to something a little more ambitious where I
>> would be able to generate my docs in the usual popular formats, namely
>> pdf, html, ps, txt, and possibly dvi.
>>
>> In terms of document structure, my needs are very basic:
>>
>> ======================================================================
>> This is the main title of my document
>> 1. Chapter 1.
>> 1.1 Paragraph 1.
>> This is a list
>> 1. list item 1
>> 2. list item 2
>> blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb ..
> [snip standard technical report]
>>
>> I am not concerned about typesetting .. the only requirement is that the
>> contents of tables and samples should materialize in a non-proportional
>> font in order to be legible.
>>
>> My only other requirement is that this "documentation system" should not
>> require the implementation of complex gui tools. I want to do it in vim
>> and use command line tools to generate the various formats.
>
> I asked something similar a couple of months ago and the concensus was
> either LaTex or DocBook.
No, LaTex or DocBook would be too much over kill for simple documentation,
though I'm very found of LaTex myself. Check out AsciiDoc.
Would something like this (AsciiDoc sample output)
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs/misc/ce01-DarkBackgroundIsGoodForYou/
be good enough? It fulfills all your requirement, but is even more simpler.
If you don't believe that everything behind it was just plain text, check
out the
AsciiDoc Markup Syntax Quick Summary
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs/nix/asciidoc-syn/ascs01-AsciiDocMarkupSyntaxQuickSummary/
HTH
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://xpt.sf.net/techdocs/
http://xpt.sf.net/tools/
Reply to: