[DOC-SIG] Documentation formats
Jim Fulton
jim.fulton@digicool.com
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:26:25 -0500
Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think that SGML is not fit to be typed by humans
I agree alot.
I also think TeX and it's variants are not fit to be typed
by humans.
> Hundreds of thousands of HTML page authors would be surprised to hear
> you say that!
I wouldn't be surprized. That doesn't make Guido's statement incorrect.
I'm putting my $0.02 in response to this message for no particular
reason. It seemed like as good a place as any. :-)
- With regard to doc strings, I think it is *very* important
that they be very readable in raw form. I think that one can
go a long way with tools like structured text to produce reasonably
rich output while retaining readability of source text.
This was discussed at length in the early days of the DOC sig.
I'm sure the archives contain this discussion.
- With regard to Python manuals and documentation not generated from
docstrings, I have another suggestion. I don't know for sure that
this suggestion is viable, or if someone has suggested this before.
IMO in an ideal world, people would author documentation in a modern
word processor like Frame or Word and people could share
documentation files using some neutral format. I don't know if
such a neutral format exists, although I seem to remember that at
one point, Frame had a tool for working with SGML in Framemaker.
I don't know what happened with that tool, but if it is still around,
maybe people who hate editing SGML could use Frame or some other
format
that supports SGML and other folks could hack SGML or use tools that
convert between their favorite editing environment and SGML.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton jim@digicool.com
Technical Director 540.371.6909 Python Powered!
Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com/ http://www.python.org/
_______________
DOC-SIG - SIG for the Python Documentation Project
send messages to: doc-sig@python.org
administrivia to: doc-sig-request@python.org
_______________