Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die

[David Kastrup]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes wrote:
>
>> Some formats (like Org) are "final", in the sense that the source text
>> (the equivalent of *.texi) is intended for consumption (it is the *.info
>> too, although not as pretty as some of its other representations such as
>> HTML.) Failures on the structure are visible, links can be checked right
>> away, etc.
>
> This is an advantage of Org mode over Texinfo.

It's also a disadvantage since it means that one simple text-based
output format has to contain the full information relevant for all other
output formats.  Which causes visual clutter not relevant for the
text-based output format.

I have no idea what you mean by "Failures on the structure are visible"
when one can only see the source text.

> Besides, we need to be realistic: we don't have an army of
> documentation developers and we're unlikely to gain one while our doc
> tools are more awkward than they need to be.  If we stick with our
> current development process this problem will likely just fester.

Again: Texinfo is not a relevant hurdle.  Elisp is.

Org most certainly would be a larger hurdle for me.

-- 
David Kastrup