On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 6:06 PM Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote:
> >> I've been looking at allowing markdown for the description files (they > >> would > >> be less verbose then), ... > > Oh boy. I guess it is inevitable, but I don't think it's a > > particularly good idea. > Personally, I don't plan to use Markdown as input for fpdoc. Seems both my assumption and jump to conclusion are unfounded. ;) > Times change, and I can imagine that people prefer a more 'free' format. > I'm just hoping to attract more users and possibly contributors... I spent too many years trying to do the same thing for an open source project... unsuccessfully I might add. It was my experience that changing the tooling does attract a little short-term interest, but not actual content contributors. > > I would rather see sectioning added to the FPDoc tags/content model: > > > > <topic> > > <section> > > <title>Using the Control</title> > > <p>Lorem ipsum sic dolor amet.</p> > > </section> > > </topic> > > And what would this do in terms ouf output ? In general, it would make FPDoc more usable for non-reference type material. Grouping related content. If <section> has a name, it could provide another level of navigation in the TOC. It provides a standard way to tag a Formal Para, instead of emulating it it with: <p> <b>Using the Control</b> </p> <p> Lorem ipsum sic dolor amet. </p> In specific, <section> could render like the HTML equivalent (as a biock). <title> renders like the HTML H4 tag. The rest of the content model renders just like the current usage. > > I'd like to see PDF output from FPDoc too.> > Currently PDF is generated through LaTeX. Yeah... I know. > The LaTeX typesetting engine is difficult to beat. > Hyphenation, page breaks: you get all that for free. Sorry, but Latex gives me the hives. After twenty years, I still have DataLogic Pager nightmares. :) Don -- _______________________________________________ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus