Re: Doc Tasks (was RE: docstrings in Guile!)

[Telford Tendys <telford at eng dot uts dot edu dot au>]

> For the record, I think this is a bad idea, but you folks may be more
> sold on SGML/XML technology after taking a look at some interesting
> work the Scheme and Lisp community has done that leverages Scheme/Lisp
> for SGML processing.  If you haven't already, see:
> 
> http://www.latte.org/latte.html

This is not SGML/XML technology! It is a cross between TeX and scheme with
facilities for HTML as an output. This document makes a point of saying that
no one would ever want to write (or look at) HTML directly with a text editor.
I can't help agreeing with them and extending the feeling toward XML too.

Actually, latte doesn't look too bad. The curly braces might make it tricky
to quote C code but scheme should be no problem and most small C expressions
don't use curly braces. Also, it should be possible to assume that any quoted
material will balance curlies (avoiding escapes in most cases).

They lied about only having three meta-characters, they have five:  { } \ & =
but the first three are the primary ones. Overall, I'd be happy using latte
provided we restrict the tags to some sensible set and we had the discipline to
keep all the {\def} macros in the one place.

Using latte looks like a bit of extra work though since the tools required
are a bit uncommon.

	- Tel