Python documentation in DocBook

[Peter Hansen]

"Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:
> 
> > At least one I can think of is that if the source were in XML,
> > something I can manipulate with my eyes closed thanks both to
> > its simplicity and to the herculean efforts of the many people
> > who have contributed to the many Python XML technologies, I
> > would have the opportunity to "play" with it, and quite possibly
> > would come up with some novel things to do with it that those
> > who currently have access have not, and perhaps would not, have
> > thought of.
> 
> That is, unfortunately, not a convincing-enough reason: the
> possibility that somebody may find a use for the documentation that he
> can't think of right now.

I was responding only to David's implied belief that there is no use 
"however slight"... not trying to convince _you_.  It seems a bit
short-sighted to think there could not possibly be any value in
the technology whatsoever.  (Yes, I know David only said nobody had
pointed out such a use yet...)

> Most likely. It appears that your potential uses would all deal with
> new processing opportunities, in which case I would always refer to
> the existing conversion to XML, which then could be used as a starting
> point for whatever new processing strategies people come up with.
> 
> For this kind of application, it is not necessary that the primary
> source is XML; it is sufficient that XML can be derived from it.

Agreed!  I was hoping that the messages I had missed might have
included comments about such a thing.  That should address the 
concerns of those suggesting, for example, that some novel search
tools could be built more easily if they had access to an XML version
of the docs.

Clearly, if the current markup is sufficient that useful XML can be 
derived from it, there is no need to switch the primary source over
to being that XML... that could always be done in the future,
if the need arises.

-Peter