I wrote: >> How should we proceed? Keep the current in-page links and add >> explicit links at the end of the paragraph to Reference Page: >> Fl_Widget::draw()?
AlbrectS replied: > I'm not sure, what exactly to do, but I started changing some links > already. My idea was to change the links within the .dox files to > doxygen links by using \section and \subsection commands and set links > to them by using explicit \ref statements. I wrote something about how > to do this in development.dox (short: every (sub)section in one of > these files has a name like filename_(sub)section, with (sub)section > being unique only in that file). We can then remove the HTML anchor > statments. \section will be formatted like H2, \subsection like H3 > (\page like H1). Even though the LaTeX generated contains too many input errors to process completely, I had already wondered whether we would need to do this in order to get a proper table of contents page. At the moment all I get is a ToC header and no ToC because of the errors. This also means we need to decide how we handle the current index.dox page, which is a sort of table of contents, the preface.dox which is also a sort of table of contents, etc. I guess we will need quite a bit of restructuring here. I'd rather not rely on having duplicate \htmlonly and \latexonly sections in the document. Let's let doxygen take the strain and do it all for us. Unfortunately it won't be clear exactly what we can do until we can generate clean LaTeX and then we can start playing around with the document template. > The only problem would be to decide, *what* we want at any given point > in the docs. IMHO, we should use doxygen links to class names and use > the doxygen features everywhere in the source and header files, as if > we wouldn't have the tutorial chapters (unless someone wants to link > to the tutorial chapter explicitly). But we should change the links > to (sub)section links *within* the tutorial chapters. I.e. remove > all (or most) explicit html links from the source and header files > and use \ref statements only to reference to the tutorial chapters, > if really intended at that point. Yes, this is what I think too. Let doxygen go the work for us. Some of the function descriptions in drawing.dox for example should really be moved to the source files, which is what I've started to do, and then the drawing.dox descriptions should be far more general. > Would this work for the LaTeX docs? Yes, I think so, but it's hard to know while the errors interfere with the processing of the complete file. > FWIW: Here is an example from drawing.dox, how we can have both: > > <A NAME="colors"></A> <!-- For old HTML links only ! --> > \section drawing_colors Colors Yes I had noticed these and understood what you were trying to do. > I did this only, because there might have been old links that I > didn't find, but the first (HTML anchor) line could be removed, if > we are sure that there are no more old html links. But I wouldn't > like to do this double work for much more links, i.e. if we decide > to remove all old html references to the html anchor statements, then > I could go on changing the links/sections/subsections within the > tutorial .dox files. I fully agree with trying to use the doxygen infrastructure rather than hand crafting something with HTML and LaTeX commands. Let me complete what I have started with drawing.dox so that I can commit it and we can all see what the problem actually is. Let's hope I can complete it this evening so we can all see the current status and can discuss a way forward. Can you wait 12 hours? D. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
