## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Forum View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Hi,

Joseph Wright a écrit :
> I'd imagine that the code needs a careful overhaul at some stage, as
> things are very much a mish-mash at the the moment. However, that
> depends on what we want, as you say. For example, the gmdoc approach of
> not needing \begin{macrocode} ... \end{macrocode} is interesting: I
> wonder if it makes it easier for new users to write documented files?
>
As a matter of personnal feeling, I'm really tired of the dtx format. If find it
too complicated to write, read and modify. In general (for my normal documents
also) I prefer rather light markup and dtx format seems like the opposite of
light to me.

I didn't have time to look too deeply in gmdoc, but I tend to think it is a more
usable approach.

While discussing l3doc, I'd like to make a quite unrelated remark (to which JF
would most probably agree). It would be great to think that a documentation is
not necessarily just a PDF, but that some information may be converted in other
format and/or reused in applications (eg a webapp like Context's (I can't
remember the name right now, or a database of which package defines which
command, etc.).

While LaTeX output in many formats (esp. XHTML-based) is a difficult problem in
general, some parts of a documentation, such as the command syntax and a summary
of the arguments, are a subset with sufficiently "rigid" structure so that it
should be doable.

I don't know if some such things was allready planed or at least discussed, so
just to be sure...

Manuel.