Feature Request - Raw HTML in ddoc comments

[Janice Caron]

On 22/02/2008, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
> But HTML sucks for writing documentation!

Opinions differ on that point.

I can show you a WYSIWYG HTML editor. Can you show me a WYSIWYG ddoc editor?

I can show you text editors that auto-complete HTML. Can you show me a
text editor that auto-completes ddoc?

For that matter, what I actually /use/ is a text editor which
syntax-highlights correctly formatted HTML. Can you show me a text
editor which syntax-highlights correctly formats ddoc?

Can you even show me a tool which validates well-formed ddoc, and
takes me to the line containing the error if it doesn't?

I don't really want to get into a format war. The point is, I have had
many years experience of working with HTML, I like it, and I'm very
comfortable with it. That won't be true for everyone, and it may not
be true for you, but that doesn't negate my experience of it. I find
it elegant and beautiful.

And - just as relevant - I wrote a tool to convert HTML to ddoc and it
took me half an hour, which is /considerably/ less time than it would
take me to learn ddoc. The way I see it, that should make everybody
happy. I'll be writing my larger docs in HTML (I'll still use raw ddoc
for quickly documenting declarations, of course), but nobody but I
will have to see that. What will go into the source code will be the
ddoc which gets produced by my tool. Everybody wins.