<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello,</div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 15/10/22 a las 09:14, Hilaire Fernandes via Cuis-dev escribió: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3ae2085b-2e1c-0c69-0765-e17390c21224@free.fr"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> No much interest, so I will resume the discussion from my perspective. For DrGeo, I write the documentation with Texinfo, it is the official format for the documentation of GNU application (DrGeo is one of them). The Cuis Book is also written with this file format. It is flexible enough and it is quite easy to output to html/pdf. </blockquote> I like TexInfo. I like its model (a graph of nodes), and its capabilities. I'm also an Emacs user. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3ae2085b-2e1c-0c69-0765-e17390c21224@free.fr"> It is also possible to output to the docbook[1] format, it is a kind of interchange format of the industry. But not really sure it is an interesting format anyway. </blockquote> Last time I tried docbook, I struggled a bit with the tooling, but could be interesting anyway. But when I look at it, what comes to my mind is "work" (schemas, transformations, formatting, etc, etc.). <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3ae2085b-2e1c-0c69-0765-e17390c21224@free.fr"> Why am I talking about these formats? Just to mention again there are several good reason to write documentation outside of Erudite and then import it into Erudite. It does not diminish the value of writing documentation directly with Erudite, this is something I could do with students, but may be not for stock documentation. Of course we want to take advantage of the literate programming features of Erudite. Under that perspective I don't know which format will give us the freedom to also describe literate programming text bloc. </blockquote> TexInfo has macros. DocBook allows customizations. But work on the conversion tool will still be required. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3ae2085b-2e1c-0c69-0765-e17390c21224@free.fr"> I am note sure you can do that with texinfo or docbook without hacking in the conversion tool, moreover I may want special literate programming for DrGeo. </blockquote> The grammar of Erudite is easy to extend from separate Cuis packages. We did that for UML, math plots, etc. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3ae2085b-2e1c-0c69-0765-e17390c21224@free.fr"> Mariano, in the example you mentioned, the documentation are markdown files. How does it work with literate programming? </blockquote> My example was with Markdown, but you would use files in Erudite source format, not Markdown, for your usecase. Then you build Erudite books from those files. It is straightforward. There are no conversions. Only matter: there are no good external editing tools for those files, that can give you a preview, etc. But, are there good user-facing editing tools for TexInfo, for example? Not sure Emacs counts. So, I think it would be more or less like what you have now with TexInfo, but you would have Erudite source files instead. Also, I'm thinking a specialized Erudite editor could be provided for files in Erudite format, coded in Cuis + Erudite, if you wanted. Mariano </body> </html>