On 31 October 2011 14:57, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with HTML documentation per se, and it sure is not
> worse than ASCII. Why do you believe roff is better than HTML? Just pipe the
> markup through htmlfmt(1) or html2text(1) if you like reading documentation
> on terminal emulators. And as long as the markup
> is terse, reading marked up text is perfectly acceptable.
Roff is actually one of the ugliest markup languages I have ever seen.
HTML is actually pretty decent if you think about it. It's
(more-or-less) XML, which isn't nice, but I'd take that over roff any
day. Anyway, the main problem with the web is the obsession with CSS
and JavaScript.
On 31 October 2011 15:04, pancake <pancake_AT_youterm.com> wrote:
> Markdown is the only decent option for documentation. A part from a .docx
Markdown is great to use, but iirc has no well-defined syntax, which
makes it difficult to parse efficiently.
cls
Received on Mon Oct 31 2011 - 16:25:48 CET