At 11:47 AM 2/13/2003, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Whether we should do the same thing with this documentation is debatable, but I think maybe it should still remain a special case and link to documentation specifically for its parent.
I guess when I am looking at the reference documentation for a particular task, I want to see everything it is capable of. That means all of the attributes and elements it supports, even if the material is redundant.
I'm not sure though.
Me neither. I take your point about it bulking up the docs. Factoring out the common stuff with a link to another page probably is the best solution.
As for superclass linking.... thats not quite going to work though. A superclass might not actually be a task, and if it is it might not be a task that can be used directly.
But if the superclass provides public set/add/create methods of the correct form, those would allow additional attributes and elements to be given to the task from a build file, right? Shouldn't these be documented?
Does all the documentation generated have to be for tasks? Couldn't pages be generated that were only available as a link from one of the task pages? And shouldn't xdocs eventually support drill down into datatypes documentation as well?
Ahh well, I seem to have developed a few more itches on my already itch-covered body. Your FOP comment made me want to write an XSL-FO stylesheet for xdocs too. You've done a great job already, don't let my kibbitzing suggest otherwise.
