[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] distributed repository: README.txt doc as package requirement
- To: John Gabriele <jmg3000@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] distributed repository: README.txt doc as package requirement
- From: Ivan Raikov <ivan.g.raikov@x>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:46:03 +0900
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <CAO9PwMWJ4e7cFoBP1sJ1CDGOT=AYK=kK7CedukmsGjZHbUnajA@mail.gmail.com> (John Gabriele's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:19:20 -0400")
- References: <CAO9PwMWJ4e7cFoBP1sJ1CDGOT=AYK=kK7CedukmsGjZHbUnajA@mail.gmail.com>
I agree with your general points about documentation, but given the
proliferation of documentation formats, I am not sure that it would be
wise to require a specific format, such as Markdown. Chicken Scheme and
Racket already have their own extensive documentation systems, and
converting their documentation to a different format would be
non-trivial. Allowing documentation in plain text or HTML to be bundled
with each package might lower the threshold of participation a bit.
John Gabriele <jmg3000@x> writes:
> Alex S. recently posted about a distributed repository and call for names.
> I'd like to suggest that, as part of whatever package format is chosen
> (I'll assume "Snow/snowball/snowfort" for the following discussion),
> that the presence of a README file (written in some format easily
> convertible to html ([Pandoc's enhanced Markdown] would be my
> suggestion)) be a requirement.
Scheme-reports mailing list