"Niels Reedijk" <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > > In our stage, i also think the Wiki is better. It applies for Doc > > > format, > > > Hosting, > > > and Submit policy. When the documentation gets more robust, we > > > can > > > translate, then modify it in the DocBook format. > > > > I beg to differ. I think the docs have to be in our subversion > > repository, and they also should be in DocBook format, so that we > > can > > easily squeeze them to any format we desire (HTML, PDF, ...). It > > should > > just be a build option to include the docs in HTML format, for > > example. > > HTML, PDF and? I see where Docbook provides good tools to export in > different formats and layouts, however, I really doubt that besides > HTML and PDF there is little to export. HTML could serve as a base, > the HTML can be transformed into PDF (print to pdf?) Scripts could be > made to combine several HTML files into one. > > I don't think the technical merits of docbook weigh up against the > learning curve at this point in time, with no one understanding it, > or > even knowing how to structure the documentation. Read what I'd do > below. > No, Print to PDF is certainly not an option. Printed documentation requires a whole different kind of styling compared to online publishing. Something I'd like to see, but I realize isn't possible now that DocBook has been opted for, is ReStructuredText, which lowers the threshold for writing tremendously, as you you can work in any text editor (face it, you don't want to do XML in Vim...) -- Mikael ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Well, I'll tell you what happens: half the time, you get a Doubleton or a Tripleton, unless you're a synchronization expert, and having a Tripleton is about as desirable as having three Balrogs show up at your tea party." -- Steve Yegge