Haha, what are you saying? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/projects/ibatis/trunk/rb $ ls docs/ total 0 drwxr-xr-x 3 users 72 Aug 9 09:58 . drwxr-xr-x 6 users 152 Aug 9 09:58 .. drwxr-xr-x 7 users 328 Aug 9 10:00 .svn
There are *no* ruby docs. :) Larry On 9/21/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Looks like the .NET guys are using DocBook, I wonder how they do it and like it? No fair, .NET people are smarter! Not as smart as Ruby people but.... >> XXE So far it sounds like XXE is about as good as OOo. The multi-format and diffing is nice, but at the expense of some of the other equally valuable criteria -- not enough to switch IMHO. I think PDF is the only really important format. Who wants to read HTML over PDF? (BTW- Check out Foxit Reader people!!!!!) :-) I'd like to hear from someone in the community. My list of acceptance criterea could be missing something or include stuff that people don't care about. For example, if our users don't care about Downloadable, Printable, and Bundleable - and would trade them for more up-to-date docs - then we may just want to use Confluence. Thoughts? Clinton On 9/21/06, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/21/06, Clinton Begin < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not resistant ... I just haven't heard any better alternatives. > > ..and I am not so crazy about DocBook either, just wanting to explore it more. > > > Developer/Author criteria: > > > > Accessible - OOo is free. > > So is XMLMind's XXE. > > > > Easy - OOo is WYSIWYG, familiar word processing paradigm. > > So is XMLMind's XXE, *to some extent*. You don't get to choose fonts, > etc, because the idea is that you are capturing content and structure > then applying styles to it later - instead of implying structure from > styles. > > The free version allegedly has a spell checker...but it sucks, unless > "Chekc Miy speeling" is all spelled right. > > > Portable - OOo is available for all desktop platforms that I know of. > > XXE is just Java. > > > Participative - OOo fails at this, it does not seem to encourage > > participation despite the above accessibility and ease of use. > > Yeah...hmm, XXE sucks at this, too. I guess you can modularize the > document, so that people can work on different sections at the same > time easily, so that's useful. But as far as easy collaboration, it's > no WIKI. ;-) > > > Quick Changes/Deployment - OOo fails at this too -- modifying the docs and > > deploying the result is a PITA and therefore discourages > > updating. > > Same as above. A docbook file is like source. It would have to be > rendered, then deployed, just like the current docs (the PDF part of > the current docs, I mean). It could be automated though. > > > User/Reader criteria: > > Printable - OOo can produce PDFs. > > XXE, too. > > > > "Bundlable" - OOo can produce PDFs that can be included with the distro (and > > is now). > > XXE, too - and it can be easily automated with ant. > > > > "Downloadable" - OOo can produce PDFs. > > Check. > > > > Multi-format - OOo can actually export to PDF, HTML and DocBook....although > > it sucks at the latter two > > DocBook rules here. Period. > > > > Searchable - OOo has good search facilities, as does PDF (google can search > > them), we can export to HTML for web search. > > DocBook can provide all of these formats, too. XXE has a search > feature, so you can search in the editor reasonably well. It work with > multi-file documents as well. > > > Other alternatives discussed so far: > > > > Confluence excels at Participative and Quick Changes, but fails in many > > others including Printable, Downloadable, Bundlable -- unless one page at a > > time is good enough. > > > > DocBook exels at Multi-format output but fails on Accessible, Easy, and > > Participative. > > Others I'm forgetting? > > > > Thoughts? > > I hate XML as much as the next guy. But XXE makes it pretty painless > (after the initial shock of "How do I set the font?!") to edit DocBook > documents. > > Looks like the .NET guys are using DocBook, I wonder how they do it and like it? > > Larry >
