#330: Support general documentation, not just haddock ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: fons | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: Cabal library | Version: 1.2.3.0 Severity: normal | Resolution: Keywords: | Difficulty: normal Ghcversion: 6.8.2 | Platform: ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by duncan): We should look at what conventions we can standardise or establish. If we make it easy, perhaps that'll encourage more new documentation. We should at least support literal docs like README, that need no generation/translation. I'd also like us to look at supporting markdown+pandoc for man pages and user guides. As an example, see the happy user guide http://haskell.org/happy/doc/happy.pdf which currently uses docbook and dblatex. That kind of level of markup should be easily doable with markdown+pandoc. The question is how easy are the tools to get good output in html and pdf for user guides, or man pages. We want to support a doc toolchain that requires zero configuration, like we do for haddock. I think we can expect package authors to specify what kind of documentation each thing is, eg notes vs user guide vs reference pages. Ideally we should not need package authors to specify the format of the documentation, we should be able to guess from the extension. {{{ documentation: notes: README, AUTHORS, Changelog, releasenotes user-guide: userguide.markdown man-pages: blah.markdown }}} -- Ticket URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/330#comment:2 Hackage http://haskell.org/cabal/ Hackage: Cabal and related projects