> I've been toying with that idea for years...
BTW, I have an winehq adapted (from a color/style point of view)
docbook.css file
so if someone wants to toy really with that, let me know
A+
> > - my point was to remove (mainly) the README and stuff like that from
> > the module dir
>
> I don't have a problem with that, but if it's general info for developers
> working on that DLL, where do you put it?
you can leave it as a README, but it sounds it's rarely updated
I'd suggest puttin
> > - perhaps, what we could add is a structured way to describe this
> > "in code" documentation (so we can extract it later on if needed)
>
>Yes, but it's getting complicated. I was just looking to clean up
>things a bit :)
>
> > - finally, what's also missing is automatic generation of online
On September 19, 2002 01:28 pm, Eric Pouech wrote:
> we mostly agree:
Yeap.
> - my point was to remove (mainly) the README and stuff like that from
> the module dir
I don't have a problem with that, but if it's general info for developers
working on that DLL, where do you put it?
> - I know qu
On September 18, 2002 01:51 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > -- rename installation-und-konfiguration.german
> > We have already a README.fr, we should be consistent.
>
> But installation-und-konfiguration.german is not really a translation
> of the README. I think it should rather be integ
"Dimitrie O. Paun" a écrit :
>
> On September 18, 2002 04:10 am, Eric POUECH wrote:
> > IMO, most of the documentation (even the internals description,
> > status of DLL) should be made in the DocBook form
>
> I don't think this is right. Documenetation that is meant for
> the user should go int
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -- remove WineHQ stuff out of there
> There are other things that are on WineHQ, and they
> don't reside in there. Why do we keep stuff like
> db2html-winehq in there? If we _need_ it in there,
> it should be in tools/ but
On September 18, 2002 04:10 am, Eric POUECH wrote:
> IMO, most of the documentation (even the internals description,
> status of DLL) should be made in the DocBook form
I don't think this is right. Documenetation that is meant for
the user should go into .sgml, no disagreement here. Documentation
> -- documentation/shell32 should be moved as a README in the dlls/shell32
> Script:
>cp documentation/shell32 dlls/shell32/README
>cvs rm -f documentation/shell32
>cvs add dlls/shell32/README
>cvs ci -m "Rename documentation/shell32 to dlls/shell32/README"
--- "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > On September 17,
2002 07:54 pm, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> > Don't agree. Bug #688 about documentation genration is still open
> > and this script is the only way to obtain correct html doc.
>
> I am not saying we don't need it. What I'm que
On September 17, 2002 07:54 pm, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> Don't agree. Bug #688 about documentation genration is still open
> and this script is the only way to obtain correct html doc.
I am not saying we don't need it. What I'm questioning is why
we need it (a) in the documentation dir, and (b)
Don't agree. Bug #688 about documentation genration is still open
and this script is the only way to obtain correct html doc.
> don't reside in there. Why do we keep stuff like
> db2html-winehq in there? If we _need_ it in there,
Add-on:
The documentation that talks about regapi must
12 matches
Mail list logo
