11 Mar
2008
11 Mar
'08
1:44 a.m.
Hello,
On 03/10/08 20:52, Edson wrote:
Hi, Guys...
Just to put another point of view... removing the template is fine to those
that will write a new module documentation, since, as Henning said, they
usually use another one already wirted as starting point.
But... where to put the documentation templates? The documentation
definitions? The structure definitions... I would say that the template
files (as examples on how to write) can be easily removed, not the
directory... it (for me, sure) seems the right place to put the structure
definitions files...
I think we should remove all things that are not actually in use. The
templates were not updated since long time, that's a clear sign of useless.
We will add new files as we get them, from the ones mentioned by you.
At last, I would say that SNV revision or date, both
have there advantage an
disadvantage... Than, why not keeping both? Something like: "Revision X,
valid on <compilation date> at <compilation time>"?
As expressed in my previous email, I think we should use the global svn
revision at generation time (for readme, html) -- this way one can
control better validity of the document for a certain feature and
content. The documents are generated from many files (admin, devel,
etc), having several revision numbers in same document is confusing.
Cheers,
Daniel
Edson
-----Original Message-----
From: openser-docs-bounces(a)lists.openser.org [mailto:openser-docs-
bounces(a)lists.openser.org] On Behalf Of Henning Westerholt
Sent: segunda-feira, 10 de março de 2008 15:10
To: openser-docs(a)lists.openser.org; miconda(a)gmail.com
Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration
On Monday 10 March 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Remaining steps, that should not affect the
content:
- migration from entities to xinclude (Henning perhaps we can talk a bit
on IRC as I get some strange errors, if you have a bit of time)
Hello Daniel,
thank you for the migration. Sure, we can talk tomorow about this.
- decide about some parts of the documentation if
we keep it or not.
docbook xml tools are more advanced than sgml ones, more information is
displayed now: e.g., svn revision info appears in each document now,
should we keep it? It is not really what one will expect from revision
part of a document (should show changes done in the document)
This big revision string is probably a little bit overkill. Perhaps we can
use
either: only the svn revision, or the date of the last change? The former
has
more advantages for the developer/ writer, the last one is probably better
understandable for the reader.
As now, there are few other sgml documents. The
templates for module
documentation. Should we keep them (doc/templates/module)? I think they
were not in use for quite some time, nor updated. The tls doc will be
migrated xml (tls/doc). The rest should be now all over xml.
Perhaps we can remove the template, i think most people uses a small
module
as
their starting point now.
Cheers,
Henning
_______________________________________________
Openser-docs mailing list
Openser-docs(a)lists.openser.org
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openser-docs