im doing some editting as thiings are now, so the html isnt just "hacked
together nonsense" it is being made coherant and valid. trust me.
trust halcyon.
and for those of you on the project... made a change to the template.
same addy. http://www.solnet-data.dk/gimphelp/
as for it belonging some
DocBook sounds fine to me presuming that the tools are validating (ie users
who just type nonsense into their text editor will be rewarded with a
screenful of errors) and so we get some decent structured documents, not
the hacked-together nonsense you usually get when people write HTML.
I don't k
I skimmed the documentation for DocBook, and while parts of it
look quit different from HTML, the necessities are simple, and
I don't see why anybody couldn't easily write a help file from
a template file (that's really how we all started learning how
to write in HTML, right?) Give me a good exam
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 07:40:12PM +0100, Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with this is that it suggests actually using "->"
> literally in the HTML, rather than the more correct "->".
There is nothing wrong with using "->" in html, except for some *very*
outdated and *ver
On Monday, 31 Jul 2000, Kevin Turner wrote:
> [Kevin checks the latest mail. Now it seems we have a help template
> file in HTML. Okay. Uh-oh, it's under a non .gimp.org domain, Sven
> will frown about that.]
The template includes "->" as a menu path separator.
The problem with this is that
I guess another argument in favour of Docbook is peer pressure. When
making the rounds around the documentation sites, I found that at the
recent Open Source Documentation Summit, the Gnome Documentation
Project, Linux Documentation Project, and FreeBSD folks have all agreed
to use DocBook (in it
