[Doc-SIG] reStructuredText v. LaTeX

[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]

Note the new subject line; it's a not-so-subtle hint that this is a dying 
thread. :-)

On Thursday 22 December 2005 11:53, Martin Blais wrote:
 > It would still not be significantly better than using LaTeX.
 > if it's not better, why change?

I'm not proposing change.  Just noting what's been considered.  (I'm also not 
ruling out change; my priority on the matter is high-quality documentation, 
not toolchain.)

 > It's not just that: the LaTeX macro call allows variations (e.g.
 > optional arguments) that the ReST form does not allow.   It's more
 > powerful.

Yes, it is.  Sometimes that's good.

 > Also, the dot-dot directives impose constraints on the layout contents
 > (has to be indented), which for some uses can make them awkward to
 > use.  The LaTeX model (delimiting with {}, not caring about
 > whitespace) is more flexible.

Yes.  I think that's a bigger problem for the Python documentation.

 > Apart from the syntax and a little less markup, I would like to know
 > are those qualities is that thing that are better with ReST than in
 > the LaTeX model.  The only thing I can see is the ease of conversion.
 > Everything else is less convenient.

The benefit of ReST is the document object model that's available.  Tools can 
be written to use that to create new features (such as navigational aids).

 > Oh, you did that?  What a wizard :-)

Either that, or a lunatic.  ;-)


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.   <fdrake at acm.org>