Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > One of the chief complaints with the current pipeline (and some of the > proposals) has been the need to install lots of tools with lots of > dependencies. I would like to avoid the need to install bleeding edge > tools and stick to what's already widely available in distros. Thus I > would like to avoid hacking asciidoc for our needs. Agreed. That means using docbook for now; the native html output from asciidoc is simply not usable for anything more complicated than a short web page. However, getting ready to collapse the pipeline by eliminating docbook seems like a good medium-term goal. > Also, I'd really like to not have to decide between asciidoc and > asciidoctor, and only use features supported by both. Let the users pick > which one suits them better. That's harder; you'll have much different output from the two processors. I'd encourage the selection of one of these two tools instead of trying to support both. I've settled on using only asciidoc for my other projects because it doesn't require the installation of a whole new language environment. -- -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
