On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 05:58:41AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 06:25:07PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > Even though the 'TECH_DOCS' variable was introduced all the way back in > > 5e00439f0a (Documentation: build html for all files in technical and > > howto, 2012-10-23), the 'bitmap-format' document was never added to that > > list when it was created. > > > > Prepare for changes to this file by including it in the list of > > technical documentation that 'make doc' will build by default. > > OK. I don't care that much about being able to format this as html, but > I agree it's good to be consistent with the other stuff in technical/. > > The big question is whether it looks OK rendered by asciidoc, and the > answer seems to be "yes" (from a cursory look I gave it). Actually, I take it back. After looking more carefully, it renders quite poorly. There's a lot of structural indentation that ends up being confused as code blocks. I don't know if it's better to have a poorly-formatted HTML file, or none at all. :) Personally, I would just read the source. And I have a slight concern that if we start "cleaning it up" to render as asciidoc, the source might end up a lot less readable (though I'd reserve judgement until actually seeing it). -Peff
