On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:58:21 -0500
Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be wrote:
Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
editors are
proprietary and pricey. But there is also
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Mike Evans mi...@saxicola.idps.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:58:21 -0500
Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be
wrote:
Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook
On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:05 AM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
True, but it's non-obvious. The links to XMLEditor Personal Edition are on
the download pages, linked at the bottom of this page.
That page also says XMLmind used to offer a Personal Edition with version
5.3.0 and earlier,
On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:05 AM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
True, but it's non-obvious. The links to XMLEditor Personal Edition are on
the download pages, linked at the bottom of this page.
That page also says
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents: It
requires that you open each file separately for editing. It will display the
whole document just fine, but it won’t let you edit anything that’s in
On 12/16/2013 6:32 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents: It
requires that you open each file separately for editing. It will display the
whole document just fine,
On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents: It
requires that you open each file separately for editing. It will display the
On Dec 16, 2013, at 7:47 PM, David Carlson david.carlson@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/2013 6:32 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents:
It requires that you open
--On December 16, 2013 8:40:31 PM -0800 John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us
wrote:
You misunderstand: XMLEditor refuses to edit the included files from
the master document. That's OK, they say that you have to load the
module files separately, and provide a context menu item to do so if
you load the
On Saturday 14 December 2013 23:05:14 Christian Stimming wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls:
Well, the friendliest format for documenters is Microsoft Word,
since pretty much any word processor will read it. We’ll get a lot
of noise from the Open Source
On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:13 AM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be wrote:
On Saturday 14 December 2013 23:05:14 Christian Stimming wrote:
Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls:
Well, the friendliest format for documenters is Microsoft Word,
since pretty much any
Hi,
I am still researching a few aspects.
Am 13.12.2013 08:26, schrieb Christian Stimming:
I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take on
the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
I think the priority of the documentation file format should
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be wrote:
Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
editors are
proprietary and pricey. But there is also serna-free [1], which claims to be
a near wysiwyg
editor that can handle docbook 4
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:03 AM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
I'll take a look at serna-free after I finish the release, which
unfortunately didn't get tagged last night because of problems with
code.gnucash.org.
Which I’ve now done.
Serna Free is free-as-in-beer. It was a free
Partially answering my own question:
Am 15.12.2013 20:43, schrieb Frank H. Ellenberger:
Does or could this also work on other OSes than Linux with Yelp?
we have in packaging/win32/install-impl.sh: make_chm ...
So we have also compiled Windows Help files.
On Dec 15, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be wrote:
Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
editors are
proprietary and pricey. But there is also serna-free [1],
On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de wrote:
Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013, 15:47:18 schrieb Mike Evans:
Given these priorities, I think both our current documentation file
format and also a potential wiki workflow might not be the best
solution. Instead
Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls:
Since no-one has mentioned it yet, what about asciidoc? It's much
simpler that the xml we have now, is very easy to learn, it is plain
text, it handles multi-part books, and AFAIK the current docbook can be
converted to asciidoc
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:26:42 +0100
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de wrote:
I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take
on the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
I think the priority of the documentation file format should
:
I think the priority of the documentation file format should be:
- to generate HTML and PDF output from it
- and to make it easy for documentation writers to edit the text
As secondary goals, I think it is nice to be able to generate epub and
mobi output and also yelp's output from
I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take
on the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
I think the priority of the documentation file format should be:
- to generate HTML and PDF output from it
- and to make it easy for documentation writers to edit
21 matches
Mail list logo
