On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 16:49, Victor Mote wrote: > Joerg is probably the key person to answer this, but I would like to throw > in 2 cents worth. First, AFAIK, all of our current documentation flows out > of XML files. If this is not totally true (and it may not be), then it > probably should be (I think they call it "eating your own dog food"). So, > docs/xml-docs seems redundant. Perhaps a concept of sources and output would > be helpful here. Second, one of my goals with the doc is to explicitly > delineate between user doc and developer doc, so that we can generate > manuals and web-site areas that are appropriate for each -- specifically to > keep developer issues out of the user doc. I have been treating the > documents in docs/xml-docs/design as being developer doc, although there are > a few documents in the docs/xml-docs/fop directory that are > developer-oriented as well. I think it would be helpful to have our source > XML documents organized around that concept as well.
Thanks for the ideas. I have had a look around and other projects us src/documentation for the docs, so I will put them in their. Keep it consistent. I will commit the files and you will be able to see what forrest does so then you will see how it fits together. Essentially it goes like so: - docs are in src/documentation (can be somewhere else) - settings are specified in forrest.properties for location of docs, sitemap etc. - you setup an installation of ant+forrest - run "forrest" from the xml-fop directory - the docs are converted across to the build/site directory > My recommended structure for the docs directory is as follows: > > source > source/dev See note 1 > source/user > build See note 2 > build/pdf > build/html > transient (or temp) See note 3 > stylesheet > (the other directories there now are ok -- graphics, examples, etc.) Forrest specifies many of these things, try it out and see how it works. You need to get forrest cvs then do build dist. Follow the instructions. > Note 1 -- for stuff currently in "design" + the documents you are asking > about and the other developer documents. In my mind "design" is a subset of > "dev". It might be useful to have "design" as a subdirectory under "dev". I was thinking of dev as in the user+design documentation of the current fop development. This is on a tab. Then the design documentation (which only appplies to the development) is a sub directory thing from the dev tab menu. > Note 2 -- perhaps this should be in xml-fop/build/docs instead. It is > important to have this be in a "build" or "output" directory so that no one > is tempted to, for example, edit the html files directly see above > Note 3 -- for transient transforms when doing builds, including the fo file. > The build could probably delete the contents, but sometimes it is nice to be > able to see the intermediate results. Thats forrest internals... > All of this, of course, is contingent on Forrest requirements. > > Sorry -- you asked a pretty simple question that was probably directed at > Joerg. I have been trying to document (and fix where possible) these > annoyances as they come up, hoping to use my still-mostly-newbie perspective > to lower the cost of bringing new newbies (??) on board. I just want to get things in place so that I can get some information down and let others dive in. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
