Re: Re: Question about bug 8206

Terminology bug, sorry.   s/docbook/doxygen  (which, actually i thought 
used
docbook as an intermediate but, apparently not).

-t


Miles Bader wrote:
> Thomas Lord <[email protected]> writes:
>   
>> (3) It's nice if the doc sources are reasonably attractive as plain
>> text.  And then derive all the formats you like from that.  Which
>> would suggest I should be a bigger docbook fan than I actually am but
>> I'm not (as a source text form), so there.
>>     
>
> Eh, how does that follow?  Docbook sources are horribly ugly -- they're
> _so_ verbose that it's often quite a chore to even find the underlying
> text for all the layers of (verbose) tagging.  I've never written a
> document in docbook, but for the same reason it looks like pure drudgery
> to write if you're not using rather heavy editor magic.
>
> I would never consider docbook an acceptable source form as long as
> people expect to able to reasonably edit the sources as raw text.
>
> -Miles
>