I thought about XML a lot, but I'm concerned about building a system that's
so big that it falls into disuse. There's just a lot of "stuff" that goes
along with XML and it's certainly not the most readable format. Also, though
I think it's very cool to be able to browse the Fusedoc stuff in a browser,
I find that what I use Fusedoc for -- communicating with other developers
during creation and maintaining the code once it's up -- readability in the
actual fuse file is much more important.
As for packet being Allairian, well...have you ever seen me and Jeremy
Allaire in the same room? Sort of like Superman and Clark Kent, maybe. (I'll
leave you to work out who's Superman...)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foulds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 9:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Documentation System for Cold Fusion
Perhaps FuseDoc should just be XML, with an external DTD residing somewhere
common.
But it's not the lingo of the schema that matters, just making sure that an
engine can read from it, and then parse the documentation in an
application's templates and drop the results into a DB where it can be
utilized by other documentation programs. ie:
*a parent/child template browser
*a todo list (add FuseDoc element "Outstanding Items")
*a template description manual
*a query or variable dependency browser
*a change management viewer
*an author work history
*etc.
p.s. packet? So Allarian.
John Foulds
Ottawa, Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: Documentation System for Cold Fusion
> John,
>
> I've been talking some with Lee about this and my thought is that ideally
> Fusedoc should have a way of declaring a template that an engine could use
> to decode it. This would mean that we wouldn't be defining the precise
> structure of Fusedoc but a Fusedoc meta-structure. An analogy might be XML
> where the DTD defines the structure of a valid XML packet. This probably
> sounds a bit weird, but the possibilities are very rich if we adopt this.
> Obviously, a good deal of work has to be done.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Documentation System for Cold Fusion
>
>
> Hal,
>
> do you subscribe to the modified form of Fusedox that Lee seems to be
using?
> Either way works but in order to move the tool forward some of the Fusedoc
> should stabilize. I just realized how usefull Lee's tool could be with
some
> expansions, yet I also have 8-10 complete sites already done in the "old"
> (??) Fusedoc style (remember START FUSEDOC and END FUSEDOC )?
>
>
> > Absolutely, Lee. I'll get it up there within the next day or so. I think
> > what Lee did is excellent and I hope we can continue to evolve Fusedoc
to
> > where it does a good job of meeting everyone's needs.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> To Unsubscribe visit
> http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or
> send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
> the body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
