[Doc-SIG] Docstring grammar: a very revised proposal

Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake@acm.org
Mon, 7 Feb 2000 15:31:08 -0500 (EST)

Mark Hammond writes:
 > Im happy to ignore StructuredText for out-of-line doc for now.  The critical

  Structured text (as evolved by David Ascher & others in this forum)
is for embedded documentation.  I only intend to support one
out-of-line format, which will be in SGML or XML (I'm leaning toward
SGML today).

 > issue we have to deal with is docstrings.  Did we ever determine what
 > OReilly's position on XML and particular DTDs is?

  Frank Willison told me that they like to see books written in some
subset of DocBook, where the specific subset depends on the topic;
they want the author to use semantic markup appropriate to the
subject.  My impression was that the *specific* subset wasn't a real
  I don't know that this is of real concern to us.  If someone wants
to feed Python's standard documentation to a publisher, DocBook can be 
used as an output format.

 > This SIG has been going for ages, and has been amazingly short on results (a
 > critisism that obviously includes myself!).  It really is time to get
 > something happening, and this is an excellent start!

  Results?  What's that?  ;)


Fred L. Drake, Jr.	  <fdrake at acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives