DLang Spec rewrite (?)

[Borden]

On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 06:43:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, in questions of whether ddoc is powerful enough or
> expressive enough to do something (which appears to be the 
> thrust of Borden's complaints) aren't affected by it.

How I'd rewrite DDoc from scratch as its own markup language is 
not quite what I'm trying to get at in this thread. From what 
I've gathered from Walter's responses, if I've understood 
correctly, is that the idea behind DDoc is to provide the 
simplest rules-based formatting scheme possible for the purposes 
of generating documentation at the same time one compiles code. I 
just want to make sure that I understand what I'm working with.

My 'complaint' - although I would prefer to have my observations 
about difficulties working with a markup system be called 
'observations' - is that the current body of text files which 
comprise the DLang spec source cannot be easily compiled into 
clean, well-formed, XHTML5-compliant files from which I can build 
an ePUB file.

To solve this problem, and based on responses I got to previous 
related threads, I offered in my first post to translate the 
DLang spec files into a markup designed for documentation. This 
idea was promptly refuted as being unwelcome effort as, it was 
explained, the DDoc spec is written in a way which is both 
sufficient for its purposes and is independent of any particular 
markup language.

I am willing to keep working with the DDoc macros to try to get 
them to output the XHTML5 files that I want. However, before I 
can continue, I need guidance on:
a) How I can modify the DLang spec files to enable me to 
translate them into the HTML5 files that I need; and
b) Avoid breaking existing compilation into other formats (such 
as Latex, PDF, HTML4, etc.)

(I apologise if my message came across as hostile. It's rather 
late where I am and I wanted to get this into the aether before I 
went to bed. I don't mean any insult if anything I've writen 
could be interpreted that way)