> On Aug 24, 2018, at 10:18 AM, David T. via gnucash-devel > <gnucash-devel@gnucash.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the hand-holding… > > Round 3. It looks like this one is on the right branch… > > Now, as for whether this process is easier than the older way, I am not > entirely convinced. The elimination of the extra layer of maintaining the > local repository and development platform is likely to make the web-edit > process more generally accessible, however. > > There still remains the issue of needing to muck around with DocBook XML > tagging, but as I have said before, that hasn’t my main barrier to > contribution. It would be nice if a writer could do their edits in a word > processor of choice and then pump out valid DocBook markup for inclusion in > the docs.
That would be nice indeed, but the only such solution that I’m aware of is an old plugin for LibreOffice and it doesn’t work very well; as I said earlier the pandoc pre- and post-processing approach doesn’t round-trip very well either. We could, I suppose, switch to docx format for the document source and use either pandoc or a custom xslt stylesheet to convert that to DocBook, but I worry that different word processors or even different versions of the same word processor might make a bunch of extraneous changes to the document that are invisible in the word processor display but would make for ugly change sets. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
