[OpenSER-Docs] module documentation sgml to xml migration

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello Henning,

On 03/10/08 20:09, Henning Westerholt wrote:
> 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.
>   
ok.
>   
>> - 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. 
>   
At this time, there are revision numbers for each chapter (admin, devel, 
faq, ...) and they reflect svn commit revision for that specif file. 
Having up to 3 or 4 such numbers in same readme might be confusing. 
keeping one in the master, will not reflect changes, as module.xml is 
the less updated. Good alternative will be to find a way to add the svn 
revision at generation time (as we get it now with compilation of 
openser and it is reflected in openser -v). I think it is possible with 
xml, to give a parameter value in the command line (needs investigation).


>   
>> 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.
>   
It is what I think as well.

Cheers,
Daniel

> Cheers,
>
> Henning
>