Leaving it in the wiki would certainly be easier for the development team to maintain. Some changes to the structure would need to be made to support version-specific documentation, but it's certainly doable without too much trouble.
I think as a rule we should not use animated gifs in the documentation and only reserve those for the VS Code marketplace introductions. For documentation purposes, still images are my preference because I can't really tell what the user is doing to cause what I'm seeing (what's being typed, mouse clicks, etc) and animated gifs can't be embedded into documents, PDF, etc and printed out, so we need to describe what's going on in text anyway. Should we have some sort of standard for the screenshots, for example, dark mode vs. light mode, and at what resolution and font size? Personally, I prefer dark mode, but if the documentation is printed, it'll be less friendly on your printer. On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:52 PM Mike Beckerle <[email protected]> wrote: > Another alternative is to leave the doc where it is, but have a page on the > main apache daffodil site linking to these various versions of the doc. Not > that different from the releases page here: > https://daffodil.apache.org/vscode/ . In fact one might have the releases > page serve mulitple purposes: link to the release, and link to the doc for > the release. > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 3:08 PM Davin Shearer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Developers, > > > > Currently the Daffodil extension for VS Code documentation is on the > GItHub > > wiki (https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/wiki). Daffodil itself > is > > documented on the https://daffodil.apache.org/ site. I'm thinking > > extension documentation should also be in the same site, also the > > documentation should probably also be version-specific, so each major > > version gets its own documentation. So for example, have documentation > for > > v1.2.0 and documentation for v1.3.0, etc. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Davin > > >
