Re: [Groff] Re: Simplifying groff documentation

[Eric S. Raymond]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>:
> Mhmm.  I have yet to see a DocBook output which looks decent (in the
> sense of good typography) without postprocessing.  Maybe I've seen
> only bad examples so far -- can you point me to something?

Um...the print version of "The Art of Unix Programming"?  I thought that
came out pretty well.

> > > > (And brace yourselves for the *real* political bunfight, which
> > > > is when I try to kill off GNU info...)
> > >
> > > You could have an ally ... !
> >
> > Next year :-).
> 
> Hehe.  What's your main argument against texinfo?

I don't have any desire to kill off Texinfo, actually.  It's
overelaborate and old-school presentational, and moving the Jargon
File from it to DocBook was a wonderful thing,  But it can survive
as a composition format without getting in the way.

It's info files as a delivery mechanism that I want to kill off.  For
on-line browsing, Texinfo content should just merge into the rest of 
the webby goodness instead of being its own weird little ghetto.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>