<!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 Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:07 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <TT>I don't disagree and I certainly haven't use asciidoc in anything more</TT> <TT>complex than a man page. just one comment that I found from a quick search,</TT> <TT>suggesting that olink _may_ be possible in asciidoc.</TT> <TT><A HREF="http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc/browse_thread/thread/4ff80242da4a3634">http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc/browse_thread/thread/4ff80242da4a3634</A></TT> <TT>btw, git uses asciidoc and has some extensive asciidoc.conf. might be</TT> <TT>worthwhile to get some tips and tricks from there.</TT> </BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the pointer. We may be victim of the pendulum syndrome. The "too many formats" replaced with "one size fits all". It would be better for the project if there were some consistency in the chosen format. It should not be "random" or based on what the developer happens to be more familiar with. Some heuristics based on content type, size, etc... Perhaps doxygen should also be considered in some cases. I have not given any thoughts yet, but protocols are heavy on public api so they seem to be good candidates. Having the code and the docs in the source could go a long way in terms keeping them in sync. </BODY> </HTML>