for what it's worth, I think asciidoc looks a bit easier to maintain, so I'm in favor of using it. I don't really have an opinion on the other issues. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christophe Fergeau" <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Marc-André Lureau" <mlureau@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:32:33 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH spice] Translate docbook -> asciidoc > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:06:51AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Hey, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:07:39PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > It's much much easier to read and edit > > > > > > Hmm, this changes things to one big txt file and one big html file. > > > The one source file per section approach plus one html file per > > > section versions were imo easier to handle, is it possible to have that > > > with asciidoc as well? > > > > Oh, I much prefer a single document, since it's easier to browse. > > > > But you should be able to generate multi-page document with docbook > > toolchain. But then, I would quite strongly discourage this. What's the > > problem with single page? > > Dunno, I'm more comfortable with smaller pages rather than single big one, > matter of personal preference I guess. The link you gave seems to imply > it's possible to generate both anyway ? > > Christophe > > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel > _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel