Joerg Heinicke wrote: > I can live with both OO and DocBook. While the latter one is really > straight forward for us, we will probably not really attract > documentors, even with some fancy editors like XXE as the usability is > not as good as with OO. But maybe that's only because the documentor > must have the document structure in mind. > > With OO it is much more difficult for us to process the results. The > documents are loose structured in the same way as HTML (no tree), but in > contrary to HTML there is at least support for requirements like > internal linking. A stylesheet processing those documents and adding the > structure will be really hard (massive Muenchian Grouping), but not > impossible of course. Therefore it's much easier for the documentor. I > would be interested how you did the templates, Sylvain, to see if this > solves problems of the post processing. > > The fact that OO files are not straight XML, but zipped XML, I would > ignore. It's easy for us to do zip/unzip automatically. We only must not > store the binaries in CVS, otherwise we will loose the possibility of > doing diffs in CVS. Ah, when writing this another advantage of XXE come > to my mind: a diff on OO files probably does not make much sense, as > they store the XML unformatted. XXE indents and formats the XML nicely > on save.
So is this the process? ... When committers receive an update, then they unpack, view and save with XXE, then diffs are clearly seen, then commit the indented XML. -- David Crossley
