Greetings. My apologies; I'm not doing well either. Must be the late summer temperature swings.
I agree with the original contributor that XML is not a suitable path. It requires too much up front for minor contributors, and will effectively exclude them. Even some bigger contributors would be turned away by this. Having said that, I do understand some (many?) of the limits of a Wiki, and this is why I agree that PDF and HTML output might be worthwhile goals. There is some possibility of providing these from the Wiki source (though they would hardly be works of art). The problem there is that it would be either a manual proocess, and would therefore always be a little outdated, or a background script would be needed to generate said output every time the Wiki is updated. That may be unreasonable, though. So, we would need to solve one or the other problem. I can investigate the former, but as everyone knows I've not had nearly as much time to spend on OS.o as I've wanted to or had hoped to. Nor am I experienced with the Perl web modules. I can't say when I would get enough time to work out a process that is not onerous (like cut 'n' paste into OpenOffice, for example, and then manual uploads to somewhere, etc.). I guess one question for the group right up front would be how current, or how often a refresh, would the PDF and HTML versions be expected to be? Rainer michelle olson wrote: > Hiya Roland, > > Night owl? :) Thanks so much for these comments, I'm sick with a cold > and have another deadline yet today, but just to address your format > question quickly: > The original contributor of this FAQ wants to keep this in wiki > format, so others can always add to it and keep it a continual work in > progress. Because this is focused for user audience, conversion to man > pages isn't really a goal for this content. > > Thanks again, > Michelle >
