On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:41:12PM -0500, Geoffrey Talvola wrote:
> > - documentation (formated in either xml-docbook or LaTeX)
>
> I don't know the pros and cons vs. our current use of simple HTML with CSS.
> I definitely don't want to see it get any harder to maintain the docs than
> it is now. This probably isn't going to happen unless someone volunteers to
> do the conversion and maintain the docs. And even then, I'm not sure Chuck
> will buy into it -- I know the last time this was discussed he expressed a
> preference for the current format :-)
It would be a big job to convert the files to LaTeX, but then we'd
get multiple output formats and the style would be the same as the
Python manuals. Plus they would be easier to convert to any other
system later because they'd be in a standard format.
If no one else does it, I can do it in a couple months if Tavis
helps build a LaTeX framework (main file and section file skeletons).
But I have lots of work to do on the Cheetah docs first.
DocBook has the same advantages/disadvantages as LaTeX. Unique
advantages include XML-compliant syntax, which is both more
interoperable nowadays and in any case the syntax is less funky
and exceptionalistic. But we've found it has a high learning
curve, and the Python-documentation style wouldn't come out of
the box so we'd have to create it ourselves. Thus, much as I
dislike writing LaTeX and dealing with its "have to escape $
and # and _ etc" and the dichotomy between its {\bf ...} vs
\code{...} distinctions, it allows us to be productive now,
and we can auto-convert it to an XML format sometime in the future.
--
-Mike (Iron) Orr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (if mail problems: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://iron.cx/ English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol
_______________________________________________
Webware-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
