Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: doc formats

[matthew hannigan]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:56:55PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> matthew hannigan <address@hidden> writes:
> > Realistically, ReST is probably as close as we'll come.
> 
> Er, I don't know about that.  There are about 1,783 different
> "structured text" formats out there, and ReST doesn't seem to be a
> particularly great one.

With the requirement is that the plain text / source text is usable/
presentable on it's own. ie. that it requires almost nothing
in the way of tags; and structure is inferred from common
conventions in the text.

> For instance, it seems to randomly, and confusingly, use the same syntax
> for different purposes in ways that don't make much apparent sense,
> and the table syntax is completely awful (tables are actually ascii-art
> tables, which are a big pain in the butt to maintain).

The requirement above pretty much says it has to be ascii art tables.
Emacs can help with this sort of thing anyway, can't it?

> I'd give it a C.

Yeah, but gradings don't mean much on their own.  
If you know of another with the above requirement then please tell!


Matt