On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> Kevin Conder wrote:
> > Perhaps Wiki isn't the best solution then. I don't see how Wiki
> > addresses some basic needs:
> > 1. Able to be viewed off-line.
> > 2. Able to be conveniently printed.
> > 3. Able to be indexed and searched.
...
>
> to address your concerns:
>
> 1. mark, is the wiki output generated as plain html ? if yes, it
> should be trivial to offer a tarball for download. if it requires
> the wiki software to be installed on the user's machine, that would
> be a problem.
I could program the server to make a tarball (basically, wget'ting itself)
It includes a facility to make a zip(!) file of all the data, but that
would only be useful for people who want to author Wiki offline.
>
> 2. if your browser's printing function is not broken (which some
> are), just print. but you will lose the hypertextish features, of
> course. if you want eye candy or layout perfection, find someone to
> do the ugly work.
>
> 3. the linking is already very good in a wiki (links are
> bi-directional). if it does generate plain html, it should be
> trivial to add an ht-dig engine so that you can do full-text
> searches.
The Wiki's pages are stored in a database. There is a full-text search
availible, see the bottom of each page.
>
> of course, a shiny docbook manual of 500 pages is so much cooler in
> almost every way, but as long as no one's going to write it, we
> might as well stick to what we have. the rather heavyweight
> alternative you suggest will IMHO pose a considerable "barrier" on
> occasional contributors and will leave one person in charge of a
> huge task.
Wiki's utility comes from its simplicity. You are always only one click
away from editing any page. You don't need to learn a new language
or any markup beyond the few lines under the <textarea> where you make
changes.
I think I should not have used the word "documentation" in describing my
little project. Kevin is a bona-fide "Documentation Author" and associates
that word with nicely written books with animals on the cover. Or at least
an organized "cathedral" description of the project. (Kevin, feel free to
defend your honor here! :) I only had a few of your posts in my archives
to go off of... ) Perhaps I could call it a "user's resource"?
It seems those who know the most about Alsa are too busy to document it
right now. I just wanted to make a repository where someone who knows more
than I do (anyone on this list, say) could read through, see an error, and
fix it in a minute. Learning DocBook and submitting a patch to the author
might take a little longer.
All this debate is fun (and would make a good Wiki page) but I think it
may be wasted effort. So far, only one person (me) has changed anything on
the Wiki.
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
