[PATCH inputproto] Add minimal asciidoc syntax

[Peter Hutterer]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 03:29:09AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 07:01 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> >On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 09:12 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >>asciidoc also converts to docbook. so while there would be some
> >>inconsistency, it wouldn't be that bad.
> >>
> >I thought about that. The strategy would that before it matures,
> >asciidoc provides
> >a "rapid development process". At one point a more formal docbook
> >version is produced
> >with all the bells and whistles and integration with the rest of the
> >documentation.
> 
> No arguing writing in docbook can be a bit 'challenging' for some things.
> 
> I'm all for keeping it easy for the devs to edit and review patches.
> I have a nervous twitch in my stomach about format proliferation
> though. I do not want to end up back where we were a year ago.

I think the best protection against format proliferation is active
maintainership and guidelines. write down what format doc has to be in 
and people will use it. we have freedom of choice, give us freedom from
choice ;)

best proof this works: people are still writing roff
 
> The doc will never be considered 'done' though, docs never are.
> Someone will have to make the call at some point and say 'close
> enough, convert to docbook.'

given a reasonable asciidoc source, what is the benefit of converting to
docbook? just more highlighting or are there other features that we could
really need?

Cheers,
  Peter

> >I tried with the makefile to get a feel for how it builds and look. It
> >is an improvement
> >over the flat file.
> 
> Matt