Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013, 15:47:18 schrieb Mike Evans: > > >> Given these priorities, I think both our current documentation file > > >> format and also a potential wiki workflow might not be the best > > >> solution. Instead of the current file format (docbook xml, split into > > >> several files using xml entities) we should very well think to switch > > >> to some other solution that makes the text much more accessible for > > >> documentation writers. > > >> > > > Since no-one has mentioned it yet, what about asciidoc? It's much > > > simpler that the xml we have now, is very easy to learn, it is plain > > > text, it handles multi-part books, and AFAIK the current docbook can be > > > converted to asciidoc without *too* much effort.
I consider asciidoc also not very accessible for non-programmer writers. IMHO a new file format for our documentation should be much easier accessible for documentation writers. Those people are by definition almost surely no programmers. I don't think the mindset of asciidoc meets their approach to writing documentation. So: no, I don't think asciidoc is an improvement of the current docbook format. Sorry. > Conversion: I found a conversion tool that I *thought* might do the job, > SaxonHE9, a java tool (ugh), but it doesn't do it very well. I tried a > couple of pages. Some post conversion cleanup was needed to remove > artifacts but, the major issue was that image placeholders went missing. So > not good enough to make it an easy convert. More research required on that > one. A proper conversion needs to be found for sure, but on the other hand, some manual work for a switch-over is fine as well. But the main reason for a new file format is what I've discussed before. Regards, CHristian _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
