David Crossley wrote: DC> I think that it confuses people. Forrest can have multiple DC> source input formats, so this description conflicts with that.
I changed that back an forth a couple of times and finally took 'formats' out. Not just because the repetition sounds bad, but mostly because to me 'input formats' suggests file of different formats (whereas I wanted to broaden the meaning to all input including databases, streams etc.) DC> I had never heard of the term, so i had to Google. DC> The results did not help to allay my concern. Yes, this may be an important issue since we also address a lot of programmers looking for documentation. How about spending an extra word on 'Apache Forrest is a standards-based framework for documentation and Single Source Publishing' DC> This term "unified output" has lost the intention DC> of what Ross suggested earlier in this thread. DC> So if we are not using the original meaning then DC> i think that we should dump it. I wouldn't drop it because I consider the unifying function is one of the most important features for both documentation and SSP. I figured I could cut it short because this won't be self-explanatory for people anyway. Looking up the original text RG> "Thus Forrest can present a unified document structure and design at the RG> output stage regardless of the chosen input formats." Not sure the meaning gets lost, but we can always write something like 'Apache Forrest is a standards-based framework for documentation and Single Source Publishing, transforming different input to a unified document structure and design at the output stage' DC> Do we really need to mention a limited list of output formats? I definitely would because these are the foundation for most publishing tasks. So here extensibility is nice, but the fact that we do HTML and PDF out of the box will be more important for perhaps 90% of the users. Or am I missing something? -- Ferdinand Soethe
