nsd users - Aug 2015 - nsd manpages

On 08/26/2015 06:41 AM, Ond?ej Sur? wrote:
*snip*
>
>> I find the xml more readable (it converts with 'xmlto man')
>
> Do you? Remind me to check for a crazy look in your eyes next time we
> meet :)
>
> Anyway I understand that mdoc might have more formatting options, but
> the question is whether they are really needed for nsd manpages and also
> whether the comfort of the authors have some priority over the tricks
> you can do with the format.
>
> JFTR for the rST you can also have something they call an "option
list":
>
>
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#option-lists
>
> which works nicely if you don't need an optional parameters to the
> options.
>
> Cheers,
>
I can't speak to man pages but XML is certainly more easy to program 
alternative interface because you can use the DOM interface or an XSLT 
to translate it.

So for something like putting man pages online, XML source to the man 
pages would probably be better than man2html.

On Aug 26 08:35:26, mpeters at domblogger.net wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/26/2015 06:41 AM, Ond?ej Sur? wrote:
> *snip*
> >
> >>I find the xml more readable (it converts with 'xmlto man')
> >
> >Do you? Remind me to check for a crazy look in your eyes next time we
> >meet :)
> >
> >Anyway I understand that mdoc might have more formatting options, but
> >the question is whether they are really needed for nsd manpages and
also
> >whether the comfort of the authors have some priority over the tricks
> >you can do with the format.
> >
> >JFTR for the rST you can also have something they call an "option
list":
> >
>
>http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#option-lists
> >
> >which works nicely if you don't need an optional parameters to the
> >options.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> 
> I can't speak to man pages but XML is certainly more easy to program
> alternative interface because you can use the DOM interface or an XSLT to
> translate it.
> 
> So for something like putting man pages online, XML source to the man pages
> would probably be better than man2html.
Please allow me to just say aaaaargh.

I am simply proposing to rewrite the manpages
form one markup langunage to another markup language,
which I believe is superior, for reasons better articulated elsewhere.
I am willing to do the work.

And now xmlt2whatever and docbook and all that hell comes.
Please don't.

	Jan

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 08:35:26AM -0700, Michael A. Peters
wrote:
> So for something like putting man pages online, XML source to the man pages
> would probably be better than man2html.
mdocml has a pretty good HTML backend, which gives better HTML than most
things I have seen so far. The quality of XML transformations varies a
lot, depending on who wrote it and how much they cared.

Joerg