[OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration

Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt at 1und1.de
Mon Mar 10 19:09:57 CET 2008

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.



More information about the sr-docs mailing list