On 8/9/07, Paul Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thoughts on a standard documentation tools and format. I'm not an open > office fan, but if people feel it is usable I'm game. >
I don't think it is terribly critical, as long as documentation is always rendered to/made available in cvs as HTML, and the HTML version is kept up-to-date. HTML (using text editor, Nvu or another editor), OpenDocument (using OpenOffice.org or Word with appropriate plug-in), DocBook, LaTeX (text editor, or LyX) are all reasonable for documentation. Personally I find OpenOffice nearly as usable as any other WYSIWYG editors. I'm not a big fan of MS Office because we cannot guarantee that everyone has access to it or access to the same version of it. Also casual users that drift in from the web may not be willing to download and open a MS Office doc for fear of macro viruses. Everyone has access to text editors and web browsers. Generally openoffice can open Word docs, so nobody will be frozen out completely. Just save the documents as an older format, like Word 97. Personally, for documentation I write ASCII text files, HTML from embedded documentation or I author HTML directly in a text editor. The downside to HTML is that it is more of a "rendered" display format. To an extent, you can lose the structure of the document to a lot of formatting tags. But for the simple documents we need here, that may not be much of an issue. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
