On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:09:06 +0200, Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hey guys, > > I have asked a simple question: which format should we use for > console-based documentation? > > It is rather obvious that once we have decided about the format, we will > make sure to provide a console-based application that can actually *show* > the info [and yes, in a bloody console!]. +1, thank you sir. > > There might be other, additional ways to view the documentation, like in > Web+ or some other GUI app, but that's not part of the question. +1, Fair enough as long a console method exists. > It doesn't make much sense to invent a *new* format, since all the > documentation is already out there (usually in either man, info or html > format). A new format would mean that we'd have to convert all the > existing > documentation to that. That's going to be much harder than converting all > the documentation to either man, info (gasp!) or html. For either of > these, > there are tools available that just work, AFAICT. > Html is the format that bridges the gap between console/GUI best, and it > is > clearly superior to man for it's navigability (just try out the > documentation for gcc and you'll see what I mean). > > However, I've always found console based browsers a bit awkward. That's > why > I'm asking: can we live with links (our console based browser, it seems) > as > console-based documentation viewer? Is w3m (or any other browser) better > for that task? I have an awesome idea for this. docbook. Docbook is standardized and converts to and from many formats: http://www.catb.org/~esr/doclifter/ man to docbook http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/Html2DocBook html to docbook docbook also will convert back to quite a few formats (including PDF and html) and has built in functionality to store images. I am sure there are console viewers out there for docbook as it's pretty popular. Thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DocBook Thanks! -- Alex