Hey, Mauro, There's been a conversation going on that I keep meaning to bring you into. In short, there's a fair amount of interest in improving our formatted kernel documentation, and, in particular, making it easier to write; I'd like to be sure that work doesn't leave media behind. Work pushed by Daniel Vetter and company has been aiming toward the ability to use a lightweight markup language in the in-source kerneldoc comments. Initially Markdown was targeted; the most likely choice now looks like ReStructuredText, though no decision has been made. I've been pushing for moving all of our formatted documentation to whatever markup we use, leaving DocBook behind. There are, I think, a lot of good reasons to want to do that, including consistency between the template files and the in-source comments, ease of authoring, and a less unwieldy toolchain. Various proof-of-concept patches have gone around showing that this idea seems to be feasible. The latest discussion is at: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.documentation/35773 The media community has a lot of investment in DocBook documentation. Converting to another markup form is relatively easy, and it's something I would be willing to help with when the time comes. But it occurred to me that I should probably ask what you all think of this. There is no flag day here; there's no reason to rip out the current DocBook-based build infrastructure as long as somebody's using it. But it would be nice to get rid of it eventually and work toward the creation of a more integrated set of kernel documentation. So...is this an idea that fills you with horror, or does it maybe have some appeal? Do you have any questions? One other question I had for you was: which of the allegedly supported output formats are important to you? Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
