WikiHaddock

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Iavor,

Thanks for the response.  I'm with you about avoiding ugly markup or ugly
anything in my Haskell code.  Even worse in other people's code I look at.
So let's broaden the conversation.

How can we get (a) richer formatting, linking, etc in our library
documentation, on the order of what something like MW can do, and (b) better
integration & consistency between library documentation (currently Haddock)
and other community-powered documentation (currently Haskell wiki).

Then there's also lhs2TeX, which has a strong overlap and non-overlap with
Haddock & HsColour.

Cheers,  - Conal


On 1/10/07, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am quite strongly opposed to using MW markup in my Haskell files.
> The reasons is that it is not well thought-out, it is not well
> defined, and it looks ugly, especially when viewed with a monospaced
> font (all the quotes!).  While the last one is clearly subjective, the
> others are based on an attempt to write a MW parser, which was not a
> pleasant experience.
> -Iavor
>
>
> On 1/10/07, Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> wrote:
> > I wonder how we could get the full expressiveness of Mediawiki (MW)
> markup
> > out the back end, when haddock parses the input according to a less
> > expressive markup language.  Hm.  Maybe just let it pass lots of markup
> > through without realizing that it's markup.  Then a MW back end would
> > unparse a few things (italics, hyperlinks) back into markup.  Of course,
> MW
> > markup differs from Haddock markup, so we'd probably want to turn off
> some
> > of Haddock's parsing (italics, at least).  I don't see how to do that in
> a
> > non-intrusive way.
> >
> > Perhaps Haddock could be refactored and exposed as a library, to give it
> > some more flexibility.  Some refactoring is intended anyway, to sync up
> with
> > ghc language changes.  In the process, its core functionality could be
> > extracted as a library and hooked up to various front-ends as well as
> > back-ends and maybe other processing as well.
> >
> > Cheers,  - Conal
> >
> >
> > On 1/10/07, Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 21:58 -0800, Conal Elliott wrote:
> > > > Suppose Haddock's documentation language ("-- | ...") were an
> extended
> > > > form of a common wiki markup language, and specifically Wikimedia's,
> > > > because the Haskell wiki uses it. Instead of converting to HTML,
> > > > Haddock could then pass through most markup unchanged and make wiki
> > > > links out of its current link markup (modules & entities).
> > >
> > > Haddock is designed to be able to produce various different output
> > > formats. It'd be perfectly reasonable to add a wkik markup backend.
> > > There's nothing that special about the html backend, it's just the
> most
> > > mature and most used.
> > >
> > > Duncan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > Libraries at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20070110/6111b591/attachment.htm