"Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases.  We 
> don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the 
> operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary.
> If we were to do source and compiled releases, the xml-docs could go 
> into the source release, for generation by the user.  Vice versa, the 
> generated html (and pdf docs?)
+1 on omitting the design doc completely in bin distributions.
Should probably omit skin source and xsl too.
I'm not sure about PDF, apparently there are not much requests
for this format.
What's larger:
- xdocs +  *2document.xsl + document2fo + build mechanism for building PDF
  (includes ant.jar?)
- xdocs + full xsl + build mechanism for building PDF
This may need some explanation: We have documents using a generic
document.dtd and some documents liks FAQs which have to be
transformed into document.dtd xdocs before the final skin
document2html.xsl can be applied. When using ant for building,
this requires either temporary files (current solution) or a
custom task for the transformation pipelines (or Cocoon CLI)

> need to be included in binary releases 
> (with the proviso above, that the design docs are not needed.)  It looks 
> as though reworking is needed in the build.xml to accommodate these 
> distinctions.  How does that sound?

That's exactly what I'm currently doing, the HTML and the
intermediate document-DTD files are produced in the build
directory. Unfortunately, as I already noted, it's an
all-or-nothing thing unless you are comfortable with broken
doc builds for some time.
If this is ok, I can commit the first half tomorrow...


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to