Improving ddoc

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 14:16:05 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 10:10:53 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
> Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> My problem is very much the opposite: it's not that only ddoc 
>> can process ddoc syntax, it's that raw ddoc syntax is, often, 
>> not very human-readable.
>
> Yeah. The enormous irony is the #1 ddoc justification - and one 
> of the big reasons doxygen or xml wasn't used IIRC - is
>
> 1. It looks good as embedded documentation, not just after it 
> is extracted and processed.
>
> 2. It's easy and natural to write, i.e. minimal reliance on 
> <tags> and other clumsy forms one would never see in a finished 
> document.
>
> http://dlang.org/ddoc.html
>
> blargh :(

I actually like DDoc as it is, and finds it readable.
Markdown is readable and all but the specifications are just 
insane.
http://commonmark.org/