still drunken seems like. sorry for the noise.
Mario -----Original Message----- From: "Mario Ivankovits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, Dez 15, 2007 3:58 pm Subject: Re: [site] preferred doc format for website To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: <dev@myfaces.apache.org> Sorry, resending to dev list. > >Hi! > >And why not helping fixing the tomahak component? >Shouldn't we stop duplicating work and making the user worring about which >comp-lib to choose? > > >Mario > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Saturday, Dez 15, 2007 3:36 pm >Subject: Re: [site] preferred doc format for website >To: Reply- "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>To: "MyFaces >Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org> > >-1 on APT >+1 on XML > >>On Dec 15, 2007 3:29 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > >>> I'm experimenting with some changes to the myfaces site. > >>> I see that there are some files in maven APT format, and some in XDOC. >>> Which is the preferred format for files? > >>> In particular, I'd like to split docs into versions that explicitly talk >>> about either JSF11 or JSF12. Which format should I write the new files in? > >>> Personally, I'm currently neutral. XML can be a pain sometimes, and is less >>> readable in raw form. However xdoc is a standard while APT is > maven-specific. > >>> Opinions? > >>> Regards, Simon > >> > >> >-- >Matthias Wessendorf > >>further stuff: >blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > >> > >
