<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 15:29 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <TT>Though this protocol description is mainly to be viewed as textfile, a few</TT> <TT>minor changes make it parsable for asciidoc to spit out reasonably</TT> <TT>nicely-formatted html code.</TT> <TT>Changes include:</TT> <TT>- underline section headers with the matching lines</TT> <TT>- add linebreaks before lists to parse them as lists</TT> <TT>- change indentation level for normal text to be left-marging aligned and</TT> <TT>  for <pre> text to be indented</TT> <TT>- comment out section dividers</TT> <TT>It's possible to run asciidoc XI2proto.txt and get some nice html output</TT> <TT>now.</TT> </BLOCKQUOTE> Nothing wrong with the patch itself, but there is a conflict in documentation strategy. We have half the protos in docbook format and half in text format. The rest of X.Org is in docbook format. I am not trying to say it is better, but having all the docs in one format is better than having multiple formats like we used to have before the conversion. I don't want to start a debate on docbook vs asciidoc but shouldn't all protos be documented with the same technology? I see them as the chapters of one book (conceptually speaking) rather than discrete entities. The driver to merge the protos is a hint that they form a cohesive whole and therefore should be documented in a likewise fashion. </BODY> </HTML>