Re: [Nasm-devel] On the future of the NASM documentation

[H. P. A. <hp...@zy...>]

On 04/13/17 17:27, Ed Beroset wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> It is becoming pretty clear that maintaining our own typesetting
>> system for the documentation is getting increasingly ridiculous.
> 
> I've not been active here for some time, but would heartily agree with that.
> 
>> Obviously we would have to make sure that the output not just looks
>> right but has the proper metadata, which would mean using a stylized
>> LaTeX, but that's not a problem -- it would still give us
>> flexibility far beyond what we currently get.
> 
> Another possibility is markdown, although the processing might need to 
> be somewhat customized.  The advantage is that it puts very little 
> extraneous stuff into the human-edited input.
> 
> LaTeX has the advantage of a very long history and a plethora of tools.
> 

In the meantime I did some work to make both the PDF and HTML
documentation look quite a bit nicer.

Opinions appreciated...

	-hpa