> i've done some experiments on one of the topics
> we had discussed here before the list went down
>
> all the files in the function directory have been split up
> in a general part and a subdirectory containing the actual
> refentries, one function refentry per file
This sounds like a good idea to me, as you already argue.
That the xml processing is slowed down is a pity, but it is
IMO not important. It's the output and the ease of modifying
/translating that counts, not the number of cycles wasted on it.
> i'm not sure yet wether we should follow the way presented
> here, which would break CVS history a bit (which is not as
> important for documentation as it is for actual code)
> or whether it would be better to leave the xml files as
> they are and have them split up and recombined in the
> background during the actual built, but that is a different
> story ...
The latter option is IMO best: you do not break CVS, you do
not have to change all files, and you can still edit the files
in a module-basis, rather than a single file for every minor
function.
For translation it is less useful, you'll need to get single functions
from the english sources when you want to translate a new function,
rather than simply copying a file.
Jeroen
