[DOC-SIG] Library reference SGML plan

[Edward Welbourne]

M-A Lemburg:
> Say, wouldn't it make sense to break the distribution into a program
> source and a documentation source part ?!
Guido:
> (On the other hand, it's easy enough for most people to download the
> HTML separately if they need it, and it *is* called a source
> distribution...)

So split the standard `source' distribution into code and doc, to get
the following as installable lumps:

 * The (source) code distribution
 * The pre-built binaries
 * (The python-in-a-box setup the advocates have discussed)

 * The (source) doc distribution
 * The pre-formatted docs (in each supported format)

(Quick bit of doc-sig advocacy - notice the ease with which a UL can be
typed in `structured text'.)  Then we have the Full Source (code and
doc) available, plus `ready-to-use' forms thereof, and we can pick and
mix - chosing which bits we want in full source form and which in
ready-mixed form.  Eg: personally, I would probably download the source
code and pre-built HTML docs.

This takes up more space on python.org's machines (just as pre-built
binaries do) but will mean python users only use the space needed for
the package components we're using.  And just as pre-built binaries
spare folk the need to have make, cc, ... installed, the ready-made docs
will spare folk the need to tame a LaTeX installation (&c).

	Eddy.

_______________
DOC-SIG  - SIG for the Python Documentation Project

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