Hello Kurt, T. Kurt Bond wrote on Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 05:11:59PM -0500: > Ingo says:
>> Sure, if your personal task is to write one document with one single >> output format in mind, even a tool containing that design mistake >> can prove adequate and helpful in that particular case. > But that is not my personal task: my task is to generate output in multiple > formats, which raw inclusions let me do, because I have multiple > inclusions, one each for each appropriate output format, [...] Wow, that's an elaborate method indeed that i don't recall having heard of before and that i certainly did not think of myself. Now that you describe it, i can see how it can help very advanced users meet their very high standards for output quality - probably at the price of relatively high effort and difficulty to implement the scheme, but that's required for very high standards in many cases. It's probably not what most people who design a shallow wrapper around one existing markup language have in mind (certainly not the original authors of markdown or scdoc, for example), so my point that you should ususually refrain from designing a shallow wrapper around a particular markup language still stands. [...] > In some cases raw inclusions are helpful; in others they are not. > But when they are helpful, they are VERY helpful. I now see your point. When making it easy to write the source document is an important consideration, like it is for manual pages, you more likely have a case where it is not all that helpful. Yours, Ingo
