Re: groff/-mandoc replacement

[Kristaps Džonsons <kristaps%kth.se@localhost>]

>> This is one of the reasons that when I've suggested something like
>> this that I've also suggested switching to a different input syntax.
>> Then it's much easier to tell what you've got and what tool to use.
>>
>> (The other and larger reason is that roff is unnecessarily painful as
>> a source language.)

David, would mdocml not satisfy this?  People would have to learn an
annotation language regardless -- what are the other options?  And
furthermore, if most (if not more-or-less all) of base is in mdoc, why
switch to something else?

roff is painful, but the mdoc package isn't really that bad.  It's just,
I think, that the documentation needs attention.  mdoc.samples.7 is huge
and mdoc.7 isn't useful at all -- if people are using mdoc.7, they know
what they're doing already.  I'd make mdoc.samples.7 be little tutorial
("use this template for commands, this for functions, this for devices")
and mdoc.7 be the complete reference.

(Sorry, David, for sending this twice -- I forgot to reply all.)