On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Clay Leeds <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly >> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the >> benefits of having CMS-based documentation. >> > > What prevents you from using the existing xdoc format as source, then > using an XSLT to map to MD whence it can be imported into / processed by > the CMS. Or can you incorporate this translation process into the CMS? > > > Nothing prevents, but the goal is in this exercise is to minimize launch > preparation time. ;-) > > If we continue to use xdoc, the CMS is skipped. It's certainly possible, > but... > Could you not use the "dynamic content" approach indicated by http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#dynamic-content? For example, use buildbot to run the forrest markdown plugin<http://forrest.apache.org/pluginDocs/plugins_0_80/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.Markdown/>. Or use an External Build <http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#external>? My main issue is switching our source format for FOP docs from XML to MD. I'm not comfortable with making this change. However, if my position is a minority among FOP committers, I will defer to the majority. Again, I don't particularly see a problem that needs to be solved with switching to CMS. True, publishing FOP site docs is presently a little clunky, but I was able to figure it out (from scratch) in a few hours, and can reproduce it at will. Of course, if people.apache.org is really going away in 2012, then I agree something has to be done. If you have cycles to spend on FOP documentation, I would prefer you spend it on updating the site and wiki docs, which are, in many cases, quite out of date. However, how you use your time is your call. :) Regards, G.
