>
>* We negotiate a HTML schema your documentation can be written in, which
> is based on current documentation; existing HTML documentation will be
> converted to the schema, with minimised changes. (The structuredness
> of HTML helps; now you also see why knowing some Lisp is beneficial :)
I'm totally willing to use a HTML schema we can negotiate, to write
future documentation in. What I don't want to do is:
- Touch existing documentation, unless I have to rewrite the content of
a page for some reason. Of course, if the conversion work is done by
somebody else, I have no objection to upstreaming the new documents.
- Add heavy dependencies to the skarnet.org Makefiles.
But honestly, if I'm going to change the way I write doc, I'd rather
write scdoc, which is simpler than plain HTML especially if we're
adding a lot of semantic tags to that HTML. To me, the best thing
would be if someone would add a HTML backend to scdoc. I may do it
myself if I need a break from interesting service management stuff and
experience an irresistible urge to work on HTML generation instead.
The odds are what they are.
--
Laurent
Received on Tue Sep 01 2020 - 10:11:14 UTC