On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 16:49, Victor Mote wrote:
> Joerg is probably the key person to answer this, but I would like to throw
> in 2 cents worth. First, AFAIK, all of our current documentation flows out
> of XML files. If this is not totally true (and it may not be), then it
> probably should be (I think they call it "eating your own dog food"). So,
> docs/xml-docs seems redundant. Perhaps a concept of sources and output would
> be helpful here. Second, one of my goals with the doc is to explicitly
> delineate between user doc and developer doc, so that we can generate
> manuals and web-site areas that are appropriate for each -- specifically to
> keep developer issues out of the user doc. I have been treating the
> documents in docs/xml-docs/design as being developer doc, although there are
> a few documents in the docs/xml-docs/fop directory that are
> developer-oriented as well. I think it would be helpful to have our source
> XML documents organized around that concept as well.
Thanks for the ideas.
I have had a look around and other projects us src/documentation for the
docs, so I will put them in their. Keep it consistent.
I will commit the files and you will be able to see what forrest does so
then you will see how it fits together. Essentially it goes like so:
- docs are in src/documentation (can be somewhere else)
- settings are specified in forrest.properties for location of docs,
sitemap etc.
- you setup an installation of ant+forrest
- run "forrest" from the xml-fop directory
- the docs are converted across to the build/site directory
> My recommended structure for the docs directory is as follows:
>
> source
> source/dev See note 1
> source/user
> buildSee note 2
> build/pdf
> build/html
> transient (or temp) See note 3
> stylesheet
> (the other directories there now are ok -- graphics, examples, etc.)
Forrest specifies many of these things, try it out and see how it works.
You need to get forrest cvs then do build dist. Follow the instructions.
> Note 1 -- for stuff currently in "design" + the documents you are asking
> about and the other developer documents. In my mind "design" is a subset of
> "dev". It might be useful to have "design" as a subdirectory under "dev".
I was thinking of dev as in the user+design documentation of the current
fop development. This is on a tab. Then the design documentation (which
only appplies to the development) is a sub directory thing from the dev
tab menu.
> Note 2 -- perhaps this should be in xml-fop/build/docs instead. It is
> important to have this be in a "build" or "output" directory so that no one
> is tempted to, for example, edit the html files directly
see above
> Note 3 -- for transient transforms when doing builds, including the fo file.
> The build could probably delete the contents, but sometimes it is nice to be
> able to see the intermediate results.
Thats forrest internals...
> All of this, of course, is contingent on Forrest requirements.
>
> Sorry -- you asked a pretty simple question that was probably directed at
> Joerg. I have been trying to document (and fix where possible) these
> annoyances as they come up, hoping to use my still-mostly-newbie perspective
> to lower the cost of bringing new newbies (??) on board.
I just want to get things in place so that I can get some information
down and let others dive in.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
