I kinda like just using HTML with simple styles for documentation, as we are
now. It works, it's easy to edit by hand, and it's just one less thing to
learn.
You're right, it's the content that's lacking, not the formatting. I don't
really care one way or the other if we split it up or leave it
Personally I find that I can write the fastest when I write in XML
because I do not have to think at all about the layout.
But the fundamental problem is the content. I would not mind compiling a
list somewhere of what docs we need. I would reccomend that we all work
towards a single book. Co
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 10:37, Geoffrey Talvola wrote:
> I kinda like just using HTML with simple styles for documentation, as we are
> now. It works, it's easy to edit by hand, and it's just one less thing to
> learn.
Yeah, reST is little weird to learn thoroughly, though the basic
structure is si
I'm willing to try reST or an XML format.
One thing I do like about HTML with styles is that anyone can contribute to
the documentation with just their favorite text editor and a web browser.
Whatever solution we use should be very easy to install and use, and I'd
like to see a "documentation how-
I forgot to mention, the documentation tools need to work on Windows. Not
everyone uses Linux to work with Webware.
- Geoff
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoffrey Talvola
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:54 PM
> To: 'Ian Bicking'
> Cc: Webware devel; Webware discuss
> Subject: RE: [
Please comment on this plan:
1) We need content to be written / collected
- I will try to organize something in the next week or so
2) Docstrings will continue to be used in order to describe API's and
classes. (This will be lifted into the appendix section of the Webware
book)
3) Other docs
