On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 16:51 +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > Can anyone provide a good counter-argument as to why *not* to use a > format like reStructuredText (rST)? It is supremely readable in plain > text (and even better with a Real Editor), and renders quite nice with > plain HTMP or with Sphinx Documentation Generator et al. Satisfies > needs of those who want to not use a browser, and those who prefer > clean online rendering. Nothing wrong with rST specifically or similar lightweight markup languages in general, quite the opposite: if you want to have both HTML and plain text versions of a document, it's IMHO way more sensible to go from text to HTML rather than the other way around. A few things to keep in mind, though: * HTML documentation is not only distributed in release archives, but also published on the website, which means it needs to integrate properly by including headers and footers and so on; * depending on the format, the tool used to generate HTML might be difficult to set up or not work at all on some older operating system that libvirt still targets; * introducing a new build requirement might simply not be worth it unless we have at least a few documents using it; * someone would have to find the time and dedication to just sit down and convert a 52 KiB file from HTML :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
