Use Antora for technical project documentation
-
id: 0000007
Context and Problem Statement
Jasonelle needs structured technical documentation for its website, iOS, and Android components that can be authored in one place and published consistently. Multiple sources produce prose that lives next to the code, but publishing it as a browsable site currently needs manual assembly. Which tool should generate the project documentation?
Considered Options
-
Use Antora
-
Use a static site generator such as Hugo or Jekyll
-
Write documentation as Markdown files with no generation step
Decision Outcome
Chosen option: "Use Antora", because it is built for multi-repository technical documentation, keeps content in AsciiDoc alongside the code, and generates a versioned site with a built-in navigation and UI. Positive consequences: documentation stays close to the sources, builds are repeatable via the playbook in CI, and it supports cross-component xrefs. Negative consequences: an extra build step and a containerized toolchain to maintain.
Antora is the best option, because it is designed for exactly this use case and
its antora-playbook.yml centralizes content, UI, and output configuration. If
a generic static site generator was chosen, documentation structure and
versioning would need custom configuration. If documentation was written with no
generation step, a browsable site would not be produced automatically.