[Laszlo-dev] For review: Change 20070919-lou-idaGli by lou, Summary: fix LPP-3826

[P T Withington]

But the input for the docbook comes from comments in our (text)  
source files.  Unless I am mistaken, we are encouraged to use html  
markup in these comments, which to my mind makes them ugly and hard  
to read in my source code editor.  What I was suggesting is that the  
text comments be filtered through markdown when they are first  
extracted.

Probably you and Ben are not talking about the ref man (which is what  
I am thinking about), which is why it seems like I might be hi!

On 2007-09-19, at 15:53 EDT, Lou Iorio wrote:

> We're producing DocBook, which is xml, not html. This would not  
> work for us
> (markdown, that is, not smoking crack).
>
> Benjamin Shine wrote:
>>
>> Who hooked Tucker up with a crack pipe and the rock?
>> Tucker, please, for the team, stop smoking crack!
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:26 PM, P T Withington wrote:
>>
>>> If _I_ ran the zoo, I would propose that we support [markdown] 
>>> (http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/) in our source doc  
>>> comments.  Yes, it's another tool in our toolchain, but I find it  
>>> a highly legible (and writable) way to mark up your doc without  
>>> cluttering it with html.
>>>
>>> On 2007-09-19, at 15:10 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote:
>>>
>>>> Approved. Holy *cow* you're thorough.
>>>> Please make another work item to change things that say "_not_"  
>>>> to good docbook markup -- is that just <em>not</em> in docbook,  
>>>> or is there another way to express emphasis?
>>
>>
>