On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:19 PM, John Gabriele <jmg3000@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to suggest that, as part of whatever package format is chosen
> (I'll assume "Snow/snowball/snowfort" for the following discussion),
> that the presence of a README file (written in some format easily
> convertible to html ([Pandoc's enhanced Markdown][1] would be my
> suggestion)) be a requirement.

As pointed out, we don't want to enforce a documentation
format.  On the other hand, a common format does make
it easier to keep the style consistent and display the docs
directly on the site.

As a compromise, the tools can directly support certain
common formats (markdown, html, scribble) and for other
formats the publisher can just generate html before uploading.

Note third parties can supply their own documentation for
libraries, including translated versions of the original.

> (BTW, after writing this message, I'm liking the name "Snow" more and
> more. For example, it would be fun to read about "heavy snowfall this
> month!" (large number of snowballs added/updated),

In fact, we're about to enter an ice age :)

> Would uploading a snowball with the same name
> as an existing one lead to a snowball fight? :) )

Maybe we can use "snowball fight" instead of golfing?

And snow angels for test suites?

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports