[DOC-SIG] Re: [PSA MEMBERS] [XML] Notes on the Tutorial's markup

[Paul Prescod]

> 
> > I think that when push comes to shove, whoever has to type this stuff
> > should vote in favour of SGML. XML means a <EMPH>lot</EMPH> of extra
> > typing, and SGML offers a <EMPH/lot/ of <>short cuts</>.
> 
> Let me request a reality check here, before you guys get all carried
> away.
> 
> Either choice sounds really bad to me.  I've come to really hate the
> idea of having to type raw SGML.  For me, SGML is great as an
> intermediate format -- I can generate it and I can parse it.  But I
> don't want to type it.  It sounds like XML is no better.
> 
> There is an existing standard for doc strings (although almost nobody
> uses it), I believe it's called "stext", which minimizes markup.  

At the point that you have commented upon, we were discussing the library
reference, which is now in some TeX variant, right?

 Paul Prescod


_______________
DOC-SIG  - SIG for the Python Documentation Project

send messages to: doc-sig@python.org
administrivia to: doc-sig-request@python.org
_______________