Oliver, On Saturday, 2016-04-09 11:50:37 +0200, you wrote:
> ... > 1) You append all links by .html. This might be necessary for a standalone > version. But it breaks the wiki if I commit the changes to the Wiki > repository. The Bitbucket wiki seems to escape on the missing extension, > kicking in the Markdown compiler with the *.md version of the filename. So at Bitbucket CPU cycles are cheaper than disk space. Hmmm. But I think this is solvable by moving this part of the code from "DocFix.sh" to "HtmlMake.py", so this change never makes it into the "*.md" files. > ... > 2) You dump all results right between the source files. This is voodoo from > the old days ;) Today we do out of source builds. Whoa! You are right in that "cmake" and perhaps "you" are doing it that way. Buth the "cmake" approach has both, advantages and disadvantages, and in any case, it's still far from being anything that could be label- ed "mainstream". Just my two cents, offered solely under the "NRWP" (No Religious Wars, Please :-) license. > ... > As compiling the > documentation needs Python, an additional Python package and a shell, <???> Python is already installed when you use Mercurial. An additional Pyth- on package? Well yes, if you (rightly) choose to provide your document- ation in Markdown format rather than directly in HTML, then some product must do the conversion. A Perl package would require Perl, a Python package would require Python, but Python's already there, see above. And a shell? Ok, the current solution probably is for Unix/Linux/Cygwin only, but I'm sure some Windows freak can easily come up with some ".cmd" file which processes all "*.md" files with "HtmlMake.py" yielding the corresponding "*.html" files. The other two scripts are already ap- plied to the source repository and are not strictly necessary for the user. And if you distribute the documentation as "tar" ball or "zip" archive, you could just distribute the "*.html" files only, without any ado. </???> > ... > Maybe for later improvement: An"up" link next to each sub-heading would be > quite convenient, too. Do you mean "Top" (top of current page)? This normally is a browser shortcut key. Or do you mean "Up" (one level up)? This currently is the "Manual" link. Or am I getting you totally wrong? > Thanks for the work You're welcome :-) Sincerely, Rainer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/ gampad/clk?id=1444514301&iu=/ca-pub-7940484522588532 _______________________________________________ Qlandkartegt-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qlandkartegt-users
