Guido van Rossum guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:08:54 -0500

>   Their document type definition is based on an old DTD called
> "QWERTZ" which was intended to be almost a direct translation of
> LaTeX.  Other than allowing documents to be validated against a DTD
> and being able to use their software, there don't appear to be any
> particular advantages to linuxdox/sgml-tools.
>   I'd be quite glad to do the work if we could decide on a usable DTD,
> but I don't think QWERTZ-derived DTDs really qualify.  There are
> others (DocBook springs to mind;
> http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html), but they get complex if
> they're actually much good, and are probably hard to deal with in the
> fairly open Python community.  I don't think it would be hard to
> derive or create something useful or even write the tools, but it
> would take a little doing.  There is an early DSSSL (SGML style sheet)
> implementation available that supports output in HTML, RTF, and TeX,
> but the style sheet and some support would need to be written.

Hmm...  Given the requirements of acceptance in the Python community,
which requires common freeware that runs on Unix and Windows (at
least), what do you *recommend*?  Or, perhaps this question is
premature -- what list of criteria do you think we should use for
deciding on Python documentation tools?

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

DOC-SIG  - SIG for the Python Documentation Project

send messages to: doc-sig@python.org
administrivia to: doc-sig-request@python.org