On 1/26/06, Robey Pointer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoting /F]
> > moving all of (or parts of) the reference documentation in to the
> > library source code would be an alternative, of course [1], but that
> > would basically mean starting over from scratch.
Bad idea. Putting the full docs in t
Robey Pointer wrote:
On 30 Dec 2005, at 18:29, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
>> [epydoc] is not really even "good enough" for a lot of my usage without some
>> seriously evil hacks. The fundamental design decision of epydoc to
>> import code, plus some other design decisions on the way it figures
>>
On 30 Dec 2005, at 18:29, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
> On 12/30/05, Robey Pointer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity (really -- not trying to jump into the flames)
>> why not just use epydoc? If it's good enough for 3rd-party python
>> libraries, isn't that just a small ste
On 29 Dec 2005, at 23:13, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Robey Pointer wrote:
>>> [Fredrik Lundh]
Really?
>>>
>>> Yes, really.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity (really -- not trying to jump into the flames)
>> why not just use epydoc? If it's good enough for 3rd-party python
>> libraries, isn't that jus
> anyone knows anything about support for semantic markup ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki
not sure a full-blown RDF-in-wiki-syntax is really that optimal,
though ;-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > No, it's a fundamental goal: to support light-weight generation of rendered
> > markup directly from source code, to enable simple tools (CGI scripts, etc)
> > to be able to render reference documentation.
>
> Python is run-time interpreted, but I don't think we need its
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> I haven't followed the thread, so many I'm repeating things.
>
> Has anyone considered using e.g. MediaWiki (the wiki used for
> Wikipedia) for Python documentation ?
>
> I'm asking because this wiki has proven to be ideally suited
> for creating complex documentation tasks
I've put an instance of Commentary up against the full 2.4
documentation: http://pythonpaste.org/comment/python24/
It writes to a Subversion repository so you can see what the backend
data looks like: http://pythonpaste.org/comment/svn/python24/ -- not
much there yet. Obviously things like not
> "Ian" == Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> While I quite like this idea, would it make it more difficult
>> when the bug tracking for the main source code is eventually
>> migrated off SF? And what would happen to existing
>> documentati
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>Anyway, another even more expedient option would be setting up a
>>separate bug tracker (something simpler to submit to than SF) and
>>putting a link on the bottom of every page, maybe like:
>>http://trac.python.org/trac/newticket?summary=re:+/path/to/doc&component=docs
>>
In a message of Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:41:50 +1000, Nick Coghlan writes:
>Ian Bicking wrote:
>> Anyway, another even more expedient option would be setting up a
>> separate bug tracker (something simpler to submit to than SF) and
>> putting a link on the bottom of every page, maybe like:
>> http://
Ian Bicking wrote:
> Anyway, another even more expedient option would be setting up a
> separate bug tracker (something simpler to submit to than SF) and
> putting a link on the bottom of every page, maybe like:
> http://trac.python.org/trac/newticket?summary=re:+/path/to/doc&component=docs
> -
On 12/30/05, Robey Pointer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 29 Dec 2005, at 18:58, David Goodger wrote:
>
> > [Fredrik Lundh]
> I'm beginning to fear that I've wasted my time on a project
> that nobody's interested in.
> >
> > [David Goodger]
> >>> Could be. I don't see HTML+PythonDoc as
Ian Bicking wrote:
> Right now most people who might be willing to contribute to the Python
> documentation don't. Well, "most don't" is an understatement. "Hardly
> any" would be more accurate. If just a small portion of people could
> contribute fairly easily that would be a big step forwar
David Goodger wrote:
>>The problem is that the WORKFLOW doesn't work.
>
>
> So fix the workflow. Something like Ian Bicking's Commentary system,
> or something more specific to Python's docs, seems to fit the bill.
I'll just note that Commentary works on any HTML, so it doesn't matter
what the
I haven't followed the thread, so many I'm repeating things.
Has anyone considered using e.g. MediaWiki (the wiki used for
Wikipedia) for Python documentation ?
I'm asking because this wiki has proven to be ideally suited
for creating complex documentation tasks and offers many features
which wou
[David Goodger]
>> The second sentence lacks a rationale. What's wrong with "--
>> dashes"? What's "silly" about "``quotes''"?
[Fredrik Lundh]
> don't you know *anything* about typography ?
Yes, for a layman, I know plenty. I am not a typographer though.
Simply put, your "list of goals" provi
I've been dodging this thread because I don't really have much to add,
apart from a documentation end user point of view...
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 09:25 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
[...]
> > Another goal is highly biased toward XML-style markup:
> >
> > * Make it trivial to do basic rendering t
> [David Goodger]
> >> Could be. I don't see HTML+PythonDoc as a significant improvement
> >> over LaTeX.
>
> [Fredrik Lundh]
> > Really?
>
> Yes, really.
Your reply makes it obvious that you don't understand the issues involved
here, nor how the goals address them.
(Snipping heavily below due to
Robey Pointer wrote:
> > [Fredrik Lundh]
> >> Really?
> >
> > Yes, really.
>
> Just out of curiosity (really -- not trying to jump into the flames)
> why not just use epydoc? If it's good enough for 3rd-party python
> libraries, isn't that just a small step from being good enough for
> the builtin
On 29 Dec 2005, at 18:58, David Goodger wrote:
> [Fredrik Lundh]
I'm beginning to fear that I've wasted my time on a project
that nobody's interested in.
>
> [David Goodger]
>>> Could be. I don't see HTML+PythonDoc as a significant improvement
>>> over LaTeX.
>
> [Fredrik Lundh]
>> Real
[Fredrik Lundh]
>>> I'm beginning to fear that I've wasted my time on a project
>>> that nobody's interested in.
[David Goodger]
>> Could be. I don't see HTML+PythonDoc as a significant improvement
>> over LaTeX.
[Fredrik Lundh]
> Really?
Yes, really.
> Have you read my list of goals?
Yes, and
David Goodger wrote:
> > however, given that the discussion that led up to this has been dead for
> > almost a week,
>
> You mean since Christmas?
>
> > I'm beginning to fear that I've wasted my time on a project
> > that nobody's interested in.
>
> Could be. I don't see HTML+PythonDoc as a signif
On 12/29/05, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> however, given that the discussion that led up to this has been dead for
> almost a week,
You mean since Christmas?
> I'm beginning to fear that I've wasted my time on a project
> that nobody's interested in.
Could be. I don't see HTML+Pyth
24 matches
Mail list logo
