Richard Hattersley started off this post showing how cool restructured
text was rendered:
http://cf-conventions.readthedocs.org/en/v1.6/

Why wouldn't we want to go this route?

-Rich

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:47 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. I think storing the conventions source in git is a great Idea which will 
> make reviewing updated much easier
> 2. Markdown (github's wiki format) may not be the best option. What about 
> latex?
> 3. Take a look at Pandoc for format conversion 
> (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/). It works great for me and apparently 
> supports docbook.
>
> Stephen.
>
> --
> Stephen Pascoe from iPhone
>
> On 11 Mar 2014, at 20:29, "Jeffrey F. Painter" 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> re word processor formats:  I'm not going that way, but if I had, it wouldn't 
> have involved proprietary software.  I was tempted because there was no 
> open-source XML editor which could usefully make sense of all features of the 
> existing CF Conventions document.
>
> re markup languages: I haven't looked at any seriously, and most I've not 
> looked at at all.  Most of the CF Conventions document, like most any 
> document, is simple stuff which anything can handle.  But there are features 
> which I'm not so sure about - custom tags, cross-references, and color-coded 
> tables come to mind.  If an alternative markup language can't do it all, then 
> we have to consider how much we value the missing features.
>
> - Jeff
>
> On 3/11/14 1:14 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> All,
>
> Converting to a simpler, more tractable markup format would be nice, but a 
> couple comments:
>
>> A few months ago I looked into converting to a word processor format, but it 
>> looked like a much bigger job than I could afford the time for.
>
> Please dont go that way anyway! XML may be a pain, but if you're going to 
> make a change, make a change to a format that is easier to mange in a version 
> control system, and doesn't require proprietary software to manage.
>
>
> I am willing to take an initial crack at putting the CF Conventions document 
> in github format, if that's the missing piece.
>
>
> gitHub supports a number of different markup formats. Markdown is the 
> default, and is nice an simple, but pretty limited. So take a look at the 
> other options -- ReStructuredText (RST) may be a better option, for instance.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> John
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 09:44, "Jeffrey F. Painter" 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> We (meaning LLNL people) don't really have positive plans to stay in DocBook 
>> format.   It is simply less effort to use it than to identify and convert to 
>> an alternative, if one exists.  We recently bought a copy of the XMLmind XML 
>> Editor, which makes in reasonably tractable to edit in DocBook.
>>
>> I suspect that most markup languages won't do all features used in the CF 
>> Conventions document.  We may be able to work around that, but I'm not sure 
>> of it.  A few months ago I looked into converting to a word processor 
>> format, but it looked like a much bigger job than I could afford the time 
>> for.
>>
>> I would be delighted if you could do this better!   You definitely have the 
>> right idea for where we should be.   And I hope that having this discussion 
>> on the cf-metadata list will bring out some more good ideas.  For the next 
>> few weeks, I don't think we at LLNL will do more than make the documents, 
>> and the Trac system, reliably available on the web again, and put the 
>> document sources on github.
>>
>> - Jeff
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/14 3:22 AM, Hattersley, Richard wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> That's excellent news. And thanks for the update - it'll save me 
>>> duplicating your efforts.
>>>
>>> It looks like your current plans are for the source code to stay in DocBook 
>>> format. Do you also have any plans to allow "instant" visual feedback? For 
>>> example, to convert it to another format which can be rendered by GitHub 
>>> (https://github.com/github/markup#markups) or 
>>> reathedocs.org<http://reathedocs.org>?
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CF-metadata 
>>> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
>>>  On Behalf Of Jeffrey F. Painter
>>> Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
>>>
>>> Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go for 
>>> the CF Conventions.  And the previous messages on this thread turn out to 
>>> be very timely!
>>>
>>> For background, over the last few months our Plone-based web site has
>>> become unmaintainable as we lost infrastructure support.   Just a few
>>> days ago I gave up on fixing the system.  Matthew Harris has been working 
>>> on a new web site, located mostly at github.  It should be up within a week.
>>>
>>> The CF Conventions "source code" has for many years been in in DocBook,
>>> an xml dialect.  It is presently kept in a Subversion repository.   We
>>> will very likely make this available on github.
>>>
>>> After the documents, the most important component of the CF Conventions web 
>>> site is the Trac issue-tracking system.  Last week I migrated it to a more 
>>> recent version on a new machine.  Over the next week I plan to migrate it 
>>> to the latest production version.  This will continue to be hosted at LLNL, 
>>> but a link to it will be on the github site.
>>>
>>> I hope these changes will serve the CF community at least for the short 
>>> run, so we can think seriously about what systems to use in the long run.
>>>
>>> - Jeff Painter
>>>
>>> On 3/10/14 7:20 AM, Signell, Richard wrote:
>>>> Richard,
>>>>
>>>> I think moving to github would be a huge improvement.  The git model
>>>> and the tools that github provides would make it much easier for other
>>>> folks to propose changes, and for those changes to be reviewed,
>>>> discussed and merged.    I think Brian and a few others were also in
>>>> favor when we discussed this last fall, but we lacked someone to carry
>>>> the flag.
>>>>
>>>> -Rich
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Hattersley, Richard
>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>    wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've recently been dipping into the UGRID conventions
>>>>> (https://github.com/ugrid-conventions/ugrid-conventions) and was
>>>>> struck by how pleasant the editing/publishing workflow was. Clearly
>>>>> from a content complexity point of view the UGRID conventions are
>>>>> smaller and simpler than CF so a direct comparison is not possible,
>>>>> but to help illustrate some of the possibilities I've prepared a
>>>>> cut-down demo version of the CF conventions document using GitHub and 
>>>>> "Read the Docs".
>>>>>
>>>>> The published versions of the demo are available from:
>>>>> http://cf-conventions.readthedocs.org. I've set the default version
>>>>> to 1.6, but by using the options in the bottom-left corner of the
>>>>> page it is possible to view 1.7-draft.1 instead. There is also a PDF
>>>>> option, but that currently has a few quirks which I've not attempted
>>>>> to address. NB. By ticking a box in GitHub, these published versions
>>>>> are automatically updated whenever the underlying content changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The underlying "source code" is defined using reStructuredText (reST)
>>>>> markup for processing by the Spinx document generator. It is hosted on 
>>>>> GitHub at:
>>>>> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions. I created the reST
>>>>> markup using an off-the-shelf HTML-to-reST converter but it did
>>>>> require some subsequent manual tweaks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also created a simple "pull request" to illustrate what happens
>>>>> when someone proposes a change:
>>>>> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions/pull/1. NB. By default
>>>>> GitHub shows the changes in the source code, but it can also show a
>>>>> rendered version of the changes, much like the strikeout/highlight
>>>>> style used in the current workflow:
>>>>> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions/pull/show/1/files/e7c84
>>>>> 59#diff-e7c84590262562a10e9fb4cf714098d3
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there interest in taking this further?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Hattersley
>>>>> Benevolent Dictator of Iris - a CF library for Python:
>>>>> www.scitools.org.uk/iris<http://www.scitools.org.uk/iris>
>>>>> Met Office  FitzRoy Road  Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
>>>>> Tel: +44 (0)1392 885702<tel:%2B44%20%280%291392%20885702>
>>>>> Email: 
>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>   Web: www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> John Graybeal
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata



-- 
Dr. Richard P. Signell   (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to