linux-kernel - Re: Documentation files in html format?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070811161200.bf9b6259.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:12:00 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Documentation files in html format?

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:17:04 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Since the network device documentation needs a rewrite, I was thinking
> > of using basic html format instead of just plain text. But since this would
> > be starting an new precedent for kernel documentation, some it seemed
> > like a worthwhile topic for discussion.
> 
> I've read pro-plain text arguments, so I'll not repeat them. I also see
> another advantage to plain text : it's very easy to draw ascii-art
> diagrams of anything. It only takes a few minutes, is always inline
> and readable with any tool. Look at the bonding doc I wrote and updated
> in 2000, people have updated or duplicated some of the diagrams when
> they have added features. Something they would definitely not have done
> if it had required some strange tool.
> 
> Also, the advantage of plain text is that it stays compatible with
> everything though the years. Had I used some random tool in 2000 for
> this, I'm not sure the tool would still exist right now. Look at RFCs.

This is getting dangerously close to an XML discussion.  ;)

ISTM (from reading the IETF mailing list) that the recommended tools
for generating plaintext RFCs are either
a) xml2rfc (from http://tools.ietf.org/inventory/author-tools)
or
b) an MS Word plugin/macro/whatever.

There is also an xml RFC to pdf/ps converter here:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/xml2pdfrfc.html


> Nothing fancy, just readable. Even the TCP FSM in rfc793 from 26 years
> ago is readable, understandable, and updatable by anybody (though it's
> a little mit messy). And it's somewhat an extreme case ;-)
> 
> I'd prefer that you define some writing conventions for plain-text
> documents that anyone should try follow, starting with the 80-cols
> limit to make Davem happy. I think that many of us can help define
> such a "standard" indicating how to underline subtitles, how to
> enumerate a list, how to avoid using tabs, how to write boxes and
> arrows in their diagrams, etc...

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/