[Sugar-devel] Flossmanuals?

[Bastien]

Luke Faraone <luke at faraone.cc> writes:

> Some points:
>
>   • It's what we use already. ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it")

I think it is broken for some purposes.

We couldn't have a decent PDF for the french translation because 
of encoding issues.

Is anyone using flossmanuals to translate Sugar documentation into
another language?

>   • It supports easy exporting to a variety of formats

I'm aware of PDF export - what other formats?

>   • FLOSSManuals has infrastructure for print-on-demand dead-tree
>   publishing

Ok.

>   • FM's software is explicitly designed for the task

Well, see above about PDF export.

>   • FM supports easy remixing of content and creation of custom books
>   pooling from a variety of on-site sources

Maybe I just miss a nice tutorial about this.

>   • There is a community of tech writers who use it.
>
> More importantly, what are the benefits/reasons-in-favor of changing to a
> "simple wiki"?

- Sugar Labs already uses a wiki;

- The source format of the wiki is easier to export into a variety of
  formats (including .odt and .pdf);

- The wiki allows better co-writing than flossmanuals;

- Nothing prevents people to export from the wiki to flossmanuals
  (e.g. to benefit from its "print-on-demand" feature) but it is 
  hard to export from flossmanuals to other formats.

My point is not about whether Sugar Labs should use flossmanuals or not,
it's about using it as a native format for documentation.

I think the native format should be:

- easy to integrate into Sugar;
- easy to export into lots of formats.

-- 
 Bastien