Le 13 juin 05, � 17:16, Linden H van der ((MI)) a �crit :

Based on some comments I would like to revise the proposal...

I'm fine with everything you suggest, just a few comments below.

...- this documentation is targeted at Cocoon 2.1. This means that we try
to write version-independent documentation, but when there is a
difference between 2.1 and 2.2, the documentation will describe 2.1. If
possible, notes will be added describing the difference in 2.2 or at
least that there IS a difference in 2.2...

This is fine assuming there is enough energy to complete the task in due time. It might be safer to focus on 2.2, with the aim of being ready when 2.2 is released. But whoever does the job gets to decide, if you guys think the above plan is workable, all the better. FWIW, I will do my best to contribute by reviewing docs, but won't be able to do any or much actual writing in the next few months.

...[Note: API docs provide a special set of generated documentation..

This will hopefully not only be the API docs, but the components docs as well (Generators, Transformers, Serializers etc.).

If the cocoon-refdoc project [1] works out as I hope (but I have no idea yet if it will), we'll be able to generate "manpage-like" docs with essential information, snippets of code, etc., in an XML format suitable for inclusion in Forrest or Daisy docs.

Don't hold your breath, but as you indicate it is good to keep that in the back of your minds, and maybe start working on the more general docs first, assuming the details will come from the generated reference docs.

-Bertrand

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/CocoonRefDocProject



P.S. Helma, it seems like your mailer is breaking threads sometimes, but not always. For example, [2] starts a new thread although it is obviously a reply to [3]. If it's easy to fix it might be good for our archives.

[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=111866680601135&w=2
[3] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=111866271205873&w=2

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to