> And at this point, the man(7) language is better maintained and > appears to have more of a future than texinfo, which has been a lame > duck now for at least half a decade, probably longer: >
Uh, oh, no idea why you bash texinfo from time to time. Currently, it receives more active development than groff – or man(7); have a look at http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git Almost all GNU programs still provide its documentation in the texinfo format; I don't see that this will change in the near future. With some care the results can be quite nice. For example, see the LilyPond notation reference at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf And here's the HTML output, generated from exactly the same texinfo source files:[1] http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/index.html > https://www.mail-archive.com/groff@gnu.org/msg08172.html This AsciiDoc thing never happened – maybe it gets some momentum right now, see https://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Arbeitsgruppe-zur-Auszeichnungssprache-AsciiDoc-gestartet-4660580.html Werner [1] LilyPond uses a heavily modified, ancient version of the texi2html script, not compatible with the one that is part of current texinfo versions. We lack the manpower to update it... But it still does its job, and the HTML output looks quite nice, too.
