[Doc-SIG] DocStrings 0.3: Suggestion for documentation syntax (very long)

David Ascher da@ski.org
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:16:13 -0800

> 2. What happened to all the people who were going to refuse to use such a
> format if it were more verbose than the proposal being circulated pre-IPC8
> (which I thouhgt was generally agreed on)? There's been no explanation of
> why they've suddenly reversed position, if they indeed have.

I certainly haven't.  There was (alas) no serious discussion on this topic
during developer's day, which in my opinion was a very frustrating and
pointless event.  Too many folks with no involvement in the SIG just felt it
was an opportunity to express their 'feelings' without committing resources
or proposals. We had yet another discussion about XML, SGML, absence of
tools, whether DocBook, PDF or Word, having user needs drive the process or
not, etc. etc., but I don't think that Fred learned anything that he didn't
know before.

FWIW, I am tentatively opposed to Moshe's proposal, the tentatively because
I haven't had a chance to give his proposal a fair look.  The 'look and
feel' of the markup, however, doesn't sit well with me.  I will do a more
serious critique in the next few days.

Moshe, could you step back a little and explain why we should undo the
relative agreement we'd established (IMO) before IPC8?