Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 17:15:33 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: =?us-ascii?B?PT9JU08tODg1OS0yP1E/SGFucy1KPUZDcmdlbl9Lb2NoPz0=?= 
	<hjk@linutronix.de>,
       Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Documentation files in html format?
Message-ID: <20070809151533.GA4955@ff.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <p73hcn8g25m.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1362
Lines: 31

On 09-08-2007 17:26, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Hans-J?rgen Koch <hjk@linutronix.de> writes:
> 
>> Am Donnerstag 09 August 2007 12:31 schrieb Stephen Hemminger:
>>> Since the network device documentation needs a rewrite, I was thinking
>>> of using basic html format instead of just plain text. 
>> Why don't you simply use DocBook? Then the user has the choice to convert
>> to HTML, PDF, LaTex or whatever.
> 
> In my experience it tends to be challenging to actually find all the packages
> needed for that. And then it's incredibly slow -- seems to be much slower
> than gcc which is somewhat of an archivement. And at least for LinuxDoc TeX usually 
> can't even compile the result.
> 
> I would say the track record of existing DocBook deployment is not good enough
> to justify further use. Plain html can be converted into all these
> formats easily too and overall it makes a much nicer user experience.
> 
> Also I would expect much more people will know how to write html versus
> DocBook.

In case of some counting: my vote is for Andi! 

Down with DocBook!!! Go txt!!! Go html!!! Andi for president!!!

Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/