Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls: > >>>> 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. > > > > Well, the friendliest format for documenters is Microsoft Word, since pretty > much any word processor will read it. We’ll get a lot of noise from the > Open Source fanatics though. Shouldn’t be too hard to make a toolchain to > convert it into whatever distribution formats we want. Complexity there > isn’t an issue because devs handle releases.
But any format of the OpenOffice / LibreOffice variants would do as well. I don't consider Microsoft Word (btw: which version? 2005 doc? 2012 docx? or whatever?) in itself a better alternative, but any WYSIWYG processor that is reasonably well available on the various OS is fine. Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
