Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > I'd also like to detangle this potential reformatting from this initial > conversion, because once it's in DocBook we can use other tools (such as > pandoc) to convert to other formats, but not from DebianDoc-SGML.
> I think both options, asciidoc or some kind of extended Markdown might > be suitable for policy, but that would also need someone to go over the > current markup and see if it would be enough. Or try a conversion and > see what gets lost. Yeah, my preference is to just go ahead with the DocBook conversion, since nearly all of the work has already been done, it gets us off a fairly deprecated toolchain, and it doesn't make the situation for moving to something like Markdown or asciidoc any worse than it is today. And it gets us down to only two markup languages used when maintaining Policy. That doesn't necessarily mean we need to use DocBook forever, but since most of the work is done, it seems like a reasonable next step? If anyone wants to pursue moving the other, smaller Policy documents to MultiMarkdown, I certainly wouldn't object (for the Perl policy, please check with the Perl maintainers on their preference), since I don't think the full power of XML is doing much for us there. The only drawback to doing that would be if we eventually want to settle on a single markup language for everything and have that be XML, and for me at least I don't mind having some MultiMarkdown in there at all and don't think we need to standardize on XML. If folks want to work on asciidoc instead, my only request is that we not increase the number of markup formats, so please convert the stuff in MultiMarkdown to asciidoc while you're doing that (and of course provide some evidence for why it's better than MultiMarkdown; I know very little about the relative merits of the two). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
