julien.ponge at gmail.com
Tue May 8 09:38:47 CEST 2007
> * For these reason, I believe the barrier for people to send
> improvements is as low or lower than reST.
The actual problem of the current HTML documentation is that it was
originally exported from LaTeX, hence it is full of
'nodeN.html#c12679019' style' references which can be hard to
maintain. I honestly think that it can be harmful in the long term
when reST is quite simple: the hyperlink integrity or appearance is an
I think that Fabrice's opinion would be great to have here.
> That being said, I don't thing reST is so bad. The reST tables seem a
> little awkward to edit, but other than that it seems fine. There are
> some tools for converting the HTML to PDF, but I don't know how their
> output compares to that of the reST generated PDFs. That might be a
> factor in favor of reST.
You can export reST to LaTeX then output a PDF and the quality is hard
to beat ;-)
More information about the izpack-devel