On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Stephen Kelly <steve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Albert Astals Cid wrote: > >> A Diumenge, 4 de setembre de 2011, Stephen Kelly vàreu escriure: >>> Harald Sitter wrote: >>> > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Stefan Majewsky >>> > >>> > <stefan.majew...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >> 2. api.kde.org doesn't show QML elements. >>> > >>> > Problem with this is that Doxygen does not support QML (yet anyway), >>> > actually I would not know how to make this work in a sane manner >>> > considering that plenty of QML elements will be directly based of a >>> > CPP object... (in phonon we actually have the documentation in the cpp >>> > object which implements the element). >>> > So, doing this in a meaningful way would likely require using qdoc for >>> > QML element documentation. >>> >>> I think that's something we should consider for kf5 anyway, for the same >>> reason. qdoc is more free now than when doxygen was created, though it >>> might not have all useful features of doxygen. Those might need to be >>> added. >> >> What is the point of trying to improve the "worse" of the two options? >> >> Albert > > > I have no idea which is worse. I don't know what qdoc is missing. > > However, Doxygen doesn't support QML. So we can do one of the following: > > * Investigate, then add QML support to doxygen. > * Don't investigate. Add QML support to doxygen or file a bug report about > it. > * Investigate, see what is missing/different in qdoc (which already has QML > handling), add it and use that. > * Ignore the issue, not investigate it, and maybe write a blog post about > how doxygen sucks because it doesn't support QML. Then maybe Dimitry will > add it.
What about adding qdoc support to doxygen? -Todd
