Re: [MC]: better FAQ.

["Andrew V. Samoilov" <kai cmail ru>]

Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hi, Peter!
> mc.sgml is not a bad idea if used consistently (i.e. the manuals are
> removed from CVS) and doesn't require patches to obsolete SGML tools, as

I agree, but I complain against FAQ in HTML.

> the old version did.  Maybe XML is better.  

May be, but XML requires additional tools and knowledge.

> nroff format is obsolete and
> inconvenient.  It doesn't even support third-level headings (after .SH and
> .SS), and they are needed.  It requires non-obvious tricks to highlight
> words before dots and commas.

Don't blame nroff. mm package has 7 levels (.H1-.H7), and as rule it is 
possible to do all what you need in nroff + mm.

BTW, "File associations"  is more right name for "Extension File".

--
Regards,
Andrew V. Samoilov