Martin Blais wrote: > On 12/22/05, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>By the way (and in the vain (sic) of shameless self-promotion...) there >>was a suggestion on Dobbs Python-URL that the inclusion of some of my >>material on urllib2 would be welcome in the tutorial. >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/1d52898f07b7dfcd/d015de23ad6818fa >> >>My tutorial is at : http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/urllib2.shtml >> >>The most appropriate sections to include would be on fetching URLs and >>handling errors, and possibly the basic authentication example. It >>probably fits best in the 'Brief tour of the standard library'. >> >>Would that be welcomed ? It is currently in rest format - and html of >>course ;-) > > > Your tutorial is great. Read it a while ago. Would love to see it > along the other tutorials or even in the library docs for the module > (as the urllib2 docs are a bit thin on explanations). > > > >>Is reST acceptable for *someone* to add this material - and if so, what >>should I do about it ? > > > Convert it to LaTeX (it's easy) and submit it. >
One of the docutils output forms is LayTeX - but the Python documentation LayTeX is pretty specific ? Anyway, that *aside* - it looks like Fred has taken on 'TeXifying' the relevant part I submitted as a patch to the urllib2 docs. (Many thanks). I'll probably wait and see how that reads and evaluate if a longer entry in the tutorial is appropriate. If it *is* then I'll customise appropriately. If I was to do this - what *is* the appropriate way to submit ? Via sourceforge ? > > >>By the way my vote is -1 on moving to html as the standard markup format >>and +1 on working on docutils to turn that into an usable input format. >>Additionally - having a wiki version, or a version that accepts user >>commentary would be a very useful way of gathering additional >>information. Of course someone has to maintain this... I think AMK did a >>simple implementation of this a while ago - although it had usability >>issues and the resulting data didn't seem to be used. I guess this is >>all part of the ongoing discussion. > > > There was a long and detailed discussion about using ReST as an input > format for documentation a while ago. The consensus was that ReST > does not allow sufficient markup for technical documentation, which is > necessary for this kind of document. > Doesn't currently - or can't ? I thought it was just the current state that was a problem. I'd be disappointed if it was never likely to be possible to create the python docs with reST. All the best, Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml > The LaTeX input format using the macros from the python docs is very > simple. Converting your document should be easy. > > cheers, > > > _______________________________________________ Doc-SIG maillist - Doc-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
