| 1 |
The fact is, asciidoc does generate native docbook output. The result |
| 2 |
I gave was made using docbook-xsl-stylesheets and a css file. So you |
| 3 |
wouldn't loose the docbook flexibility then... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
My 2 cents. It's up to you, of course. |
| 6 |
Lionel |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> On 11/26/2010 08:32 AM, Lionel Orry wrote: |
| 10 |
>> Dear all, |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I just made a try to convert the portage documentation |
| 13 |
>> (http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/) to asciidoc so that it |
| 14 |
>> would be easier to maintain and with a standard layout and style that |
| 15 |
>> is IMHO not bad and makes the doc easier to read. Are you interested? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> I attach the asciidoc sources, a tiny makefile and an already |
| 18 |
>> generated version in the 'portage.chunked' directory. All you need to |
| 19 |
>> generate the doc is 'emerge asciidoc'. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> The only issue I had was including several authors, so this part is |
| 22 |
>> commented out. But if we stick to the docbook backend, we can include |
| 23 |
>> a docinfo file that solves the problem. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> Hope you'll find this useful... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> The asciidoc format seems nice, but personally, I think I prefer docbook |
| 28 |
> since the SGML/XML approach seems more flexible and extensible. Maybe |
| 29 |
> XML isn't quite as easy to read and edit, but it seems like a good |
| 30 |
> trade-off to me. |
| 31 |
> -- |
| 32 |
> Thanks, |
| 33 |
> Zac |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
Archives