Python documentation in DocBook

[Michael Hudson]

martin at v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis) writes:

> DaveP <DaveP at NEARLYdpawson.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
[...]
> > My wild guess would be that there are today more people familiar with XML
> > than there are with \tex.

I doubt this.  Many, many scientists know tex, or rather latex.

Among the people who are likely to contribute to Python's docs, you
may well be right, though I'm not sure what "being familiar with XML"
*means* here -- being familiar with an appropriate XML application
like docbook is surely the point, and that cuts the number of people
down again.

> > How long will the supply of tex afficianado's last?

Long enough, I'd bet.

> You don't need to be a Tex aficionado to contribute to the Python
> documentation. I don't like Tex myself, and I don't use it for
> anything but the Python documentation. However, when writing Python
> documentation, I don't think of it as writing Tex. It is a special
> language that is much easier to learn than Tex, since the processor is
> much more forgiving (it is processed by Fred Drake, after all).

My pedantic streak is wanting to point out the differences between
"Tex", "plain Tex" and "LaTex" (the last of which being what Python's
docs are in), but I doubt anyone cares...

Cheers,
M.

-- 
  Do I do everything in C++ and teach a course in advanced swearing?
         -- David Beazley at IPC8, on choosing a language for teaching