Hi, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 05.07.2010 17:13:32 Simon Pepping wrote: <snip/> >> In compliance, I kept only 0.95, 1.0 and trunk. This caused extensive >> changes to comments. > > I guess keeping track of various versions on the website is one of the > biggest issues why doing FOP releases is so hard. I keep wondering if we > should not transform the actual product information to DocBook. But that, > too, takes a lot of (initial) work.
Interesting. Do you mean completely replacing Forrest by a DocBook-based framework? Because otherwise that would only add up to the complexity IMO. >From my experience I see the following pros and cons of using DocBook: Pros: • stable, well-known, well supported format; • very well documented: http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/docbook.html • geared towards technical documentation which exactly matches our needs; • HTML output easily customizable by CSS; • PDF output easily customizable by XSLT; • well supported, excellently documented official stylesheets: http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ • I like it ;-) Cons: • horribly verbose; • some work would be needed to turn the HTML output into a proper website; A website extension is available but I think it tends to lag behind; • some currently automatically generated pages (like status.xml) would have to be re-created. >From a personal point of view, I would be rather excited to work on a DocBook-based website rather than a Forrest-based one. Mainly because I’m more familiar with DocBook than Forrest that still looks a bit like a black box to me. For example, I have already customized the PDF output produced from a DocBook document, whereas I wouldn’t know where to start with Forrest. The customization of the HTML output also looks easier to me. > > > Jeremias Maerki That was my 2 cents, Vincent