> update the rest of the documentation which is currently a mix of
> linuxdoc and docbook-sgml, but I'm not really sure what the right format
> would be. Docbook is just too verbose for hand editing, and the standard
> seems to be a moving target. Is is still docbook-xml, or are we at -yml
> or -zml by now?

	As far as I know, docbook-xml is still the strong standard for
documentation.  And it isn't too hard to manage if you use a wysiwyg
editor.  There's a list of available editors here:

http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookAuthoringTools

and some converters if you want to use OpenOffice or something to edit
and then convert it to docbook.  Alas, the built-in support for docbook
in OpenOffice is pretty poor.

http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/ConvertOtherFormatsToDocBook

> Maybe we will simply use plain HTML text, or OpenOffice XML. As long as
> editing is fairly simple and we can get reasonably looking .html and .ps
> output.

	There are plenty of alternatives, and I'm fine with the OpenOffice
solution.  DocBook's advantage is the structure that allows easy
generation of indices, lists of figures, navigable tables of contents,
etc.  

	Take a look at some of the visual editors, like the plugin for Eclipse
(Vex), or Lyx...

-- 
Patrick Walsh
eSoft Incorporated
303.444.1600 x3350
http://www.esoft.com/