Re: [avrdude-dev] Re: avrdude documentation (was: Re: avrdude + Windows)

[Theodore A. Roth]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Joerg Wunsch wrote:

:) So the question is: what opinions do others have here?  I guess
:) doxygen is a bit out of the question.  Our experience in avr-libc
:) wasn't that nice after digging a bit deeper into all of it, and the
:) main reason for doxygen, the tight integration of code and
:) documentation, is only needed for documenting APIs and such.  This is
:) not the major pointer for the advanced avrdude documentation.

I've found texinfo to be decent. It can generate many different
formats (info, ps, pdf, html). The html would better meet your
visibility criterion than doxygen. See the simulavr manual for an
example. It's really not that hard to use and emacs has a texinfo mode
which can be used to automate getting the chapter/section tags right.

Some people might like docbook better, but I've found it to be to much
of a pain in the a** to enter all the markup with a text editor (I
never use WYSIWYG editors).

For me, texinfo seems to have the best flexibility to markup verbosity
ratio.

Ted