Makes sense to me. However, I don't think it's necessary to have all documentation as such. Perhaps just the Day to day stuff can be translated (things that are more likely to change).
That's my current plan, anyway (although I don't yet know how to make that happen). Ye olde documentation can remain on xdoc format, or better yet get converted to Docbook format. Web Maestro Clay "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness." - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > If I understand correctly, it is proposed that the FOP doc sources be changed > from the current forrest based format (and XML format) to markdown format. If > this is correct, then I would like to voice my objection to making this > change. > > I am all for improving FOP documentation and management process; however, I > am very leery about changing from an XML source format to a non-XML format, > especially one that is as semantically sparse as the markdown format. > > If a change is to be made, then I would suggest that some XML format remain > as the source format, and that markdown be one of a number of possible output > (publishing) formats. > > Overall, I would prefer spending scarce resources on improving the depth, > breadth, accuracy, and currency of FOP documentation content, rather than on > switching to a different source format, management, or publishing format. > > I also feel it is very important to continue using FOP documentation to > create some output format. I am not prepared to give up our dog food, as that > provides one more set of tests on FOP, that would otherwise be missing. Given > the sparseness of FOP test coverage, the more content we formally run FOP on, > the better. > > G. >
