POD vs. reST for standalone writing?

[Wilk]

David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting.com> writes:

> > Now I start seeing mention of reStructuredText (especially in comments
> > about pyCon.)  reST files look very "ascii art" on the input side, but
> > after a little experiment, that seems to make them *harder* to write,
> > if somewhat (and I think only a little) easier to read. 
> >
> > Am I missing something?  Is there actually a reST clear short hand,
> > and a tool that expands it to full-blown ascii-art?  Or is at least
> > fuzzy in the counting of dashes and other punctuation for marking
> > different levels?
> 
> ReST rocks.  I'm using it to write a book, and think that it comes
> out very readably and is miles easier to write than any tweaky **ML
> or TeX.

sure, i agree.

It's not so difficult to use, even for people without
computer knowledge. And it's easy to extend with new "directives" for
python programers.

After study of latex, docbook and *ml technologies with a professional
editor, they finaly choose rst (to put the book online and keep
archive).

I think rst has the same phylosophy of python. It's simple when we need
to do simple things (a simple text need only spaces between paragraph,
italic and bold). But it can be powerfull when we need (with standards
directives), and more with possibility to create new ones.

I had the same feeling from docbook/html/latex to rst than from java to
python ! No extra markers, clear text !

Somes examples of non-computer rst text (a french newspaper):
http://cequilfautdetruire.org

bye

-- 
William Dode - http://flibuste.net