Python documentation in DocBook

[Martin v. Loewis]

DaveP <DaveP at NEARLYdpawson.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> > http://tinyurl.com/2mhm
[...]
> That appears to insist on maintaining a solution to a problem?

I can't understand that comment. What is "That", and how does that
insist on maintaining what solution to what problem?

I'm telling that the Python documentation uses Python-specific markup,
which is needed in formatting.

> I'm curious what the problem being solved is, and whether docbook
> and its xml toolset could resolve it?

As a DocBook user, I can tell you that DocBook and its xml toolset
could not resolve that.

> is \seerfc an external reference to an rfc?

It is used in pairs. First, you write

\rfc{1521}

then you write

  \seerfc{1521}{MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One:
          Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of
          Internet Message Bodies}{Section 5.2, ``Base64
          Content-Transfer-Encoding,'' provides the definition of the
          base64 encoding.}

You can see the resulting HTML at

http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-base64.html

> <ulink href="url"> .... </ulink> appears to provide the same
> functionality if that is the case.

Yes, but the documentation author has to fill in the URL. In Python
documentation, the RFC URL provided at formatting time; currently, it
points to www.faqs.org.

So yes, this could be converted, but only with a loss of information.

Regards,
Martin