Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

We can do epub as well and distribute for Kindle.

I had this in the build previously, but we can addnit back if it's useful

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 17:41 Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> yup.  as I've said before I think we have a good 2 years plus mileage to
> be had out of docbook 5 yet.  These things will take some time to reach
> close to docbook level of maturity.
>
> but they will.  The docbook experts (particularly the all important ones
> working for o'reilly) are already beating that trail for us.
>
> Was pleased to see Cecillia has been able to generate webhelp off the
> docbook already which is cool.  Another fun thing to add to your hairy
> maven build :-)
>
> On 26 April 2016 at 17:35, Jason Pickering 
> wrote:
>
>> Well, having spent the last week almost converting the docs to docbook 5,
>> I suggest we wait to hear what the docbook experts have to say first.  😉In
>> principle, it sounds good.  However, we have a very solid tool chain at the
>>  moment and I wonder if the same set of tools exists for this (draft)
>> standard.  When oasis adopts it, and there are good tool chains to support
>> it, it may be worth the switch.
>>
>> But, let's not get involved too deeply in framework debates.  We are
>> extremely fortunate to have two technical writers on the team, which has
>> lead to great improvements already.
>>
>> Maybe can develop the XSLT to convert the current docs to this format? In
>> the meantime, there are still outstanding technical issues which I will try
>> and resolve with the docs while our tech writers can focus on the content.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing and it does look good.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 17:26 Bob Jolliffe  wrote:
>>
>>> A small glimpse at the (open) future of publishing:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol10/print/Kleinfeld01/BalisageVol10-Kleinfeld01.html
>>>
>>> On 11 April 2016 at 12:11, Jason Pickering 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Perhaps this is possible, but not all of us have access to the UiO
>>> license,
>>> > and the license conditions may prevent onward distribution of this to
>>> > community members outside of UiO. Not sure. Anyway, it may be best to
>>> engage
>>> > with oXygen and see what the terms and conditions are, assuming this
>>> is the
>>> > direction we want to go.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Morten Olav Hansen 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> We already have university licenses for oXygen XML, maybe that also
>>> >> entitles us to a license for the web version? (if you want to use that
>>> >> instead)
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Morten Olav Hansen
>>> >> Senior Engineer, DHIS 2
>>> >> University of Oslo
>>> >> http://www.dhis2.org
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Pickering
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Knut,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good
>>> for
>>> >>> more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but
>>> up
>>> >>> until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So,
>>> these
>>> >>> five licenses would go a long way.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards,
>>> >>> Jason
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  200$/month for 5 people, that is.
>>> 
>>>  Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps
>>> productivity.
>>> 
>>>  On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
>>> > Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web
>>> Author
>>> > for a maximum of 30 days
>>> >
>>> > Seems to be 200 USD per month?
>>> >
>>> > oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model
>>> with a
>>> > minimum commitment period of 12 months.
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of
>>> Oxygen
>>> >> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub.
>>> It seems
>>> >> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved
>>> deprecated Serna.
>>> >> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to
>>> Chrome.
>>> >> Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or
>>> something which
>>> >> is actually fully functional and free?
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Jason
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe <
>>> bobjolli...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html
>>> seems
>>> >>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part
>>> of
>>> >>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess 

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Bob Jolliffe]

yup.  as I've said before I think we have a good 2 years plus mileage to be
had out of docbook 5 yet.  These things will take some time to reach close
to docbook level of maturity.

but they will.  The docbook experts (particularly the all important ones
working for o'reilly) are already beating that trail for us.

Was pleased to see Cecillia has been able to generate webhelp off the
docbook already which is cool.  Another fun thing to add to your hairy
maven build :-)

On 26 April 2016 at 17:35, Jason Pickering 
wrote:

> Well, having spent the last week almost converting the docs to docbook 5,
> I suggest we wait to hear what the docbook experts have to say first.  😉In
> principle, it sounds good.  However, we have a very solid tool chain at the
>  moment and I wonder if the same set of tools exists for this (draft)
> standard.  When oasis adopts it, and there are good tool chains to support
> it, it may be worth the switch.
>
> But, let's not get involved too deeply in framework debates.  We are
> extremely fortunate to have two technical writers on the team, which has
> lead to great improvements already.
>
> Maybe can develop the XSLT to convert the current docs to this format? In
> the meantime, there are still outstanding technical issues which I will try
> and resolve with the docs while our tech writers can focus on the content.
>
> Thanks for sharing and it does look good.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 17:26 Bob Jolliffe  wrote:
>
>> A small glimpse at the (open) future of publishing:
>>
>>
>> http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol10/print/Kleinfeld01/BalisageVol10-Kleinfeld01.html
>>
>> On 11 April 2016 at 12:11, Jason Pickering 
>> wrote:
>> > Perhaps this is possible, but not all of us have access to the UiO
>> license,
>> > and the license conditions may prevent onward distribution of this to
>> > community members outside of UiO. Not sure. Anyway, it may be best to
>> engage
>> > with oXygen and see what the terms and conditions are, assuming this is
>> the
>> > direction we want to go.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Morten Olav Hansen 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We already have university licenses for oXygen XML, maybe that also
>> >> entitles us to a license for the web version? (if you want to use that
>> >> instead)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Morten Olav Hansen
>> >> Senior Engineer, DHIS 2
>> >> University of Oslo
>> >> http://www.dhis2.org
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Pickering
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Knut,
>> >>>
>> >>> If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good
>> for
>> >>> more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but
>> up
>> >>> until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So,
>> these
>> >>> five licenses would go a long way.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Jason
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  200$/month for 5 people, that is.
>> 
>>  Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps
>> productivity.
>> 
>>  On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
>> > Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author
>> > for a maximum of 30 days
>> >
>> > Seems to be 200 USD per month?
>> >
>> > oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model
>> with a
>> > minimum commitment period of 12 months.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of
>> Oxygen
>> >> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub.
>> It seems
>> >> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated
>> Serna.
>> >> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome.
>> >> Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or
>> something which
>> >> is actually fully functional and free?
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Jason
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe <
>> bobjolli...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html
>> seems
>> >>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>> >>>
>> >>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part
>> of
>> >>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the
>> idea
>> >>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
>> >>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm
>> modules
>> >>> and the like.
>> >>>
>> >>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more
>> and
>> >>> improved content.  While we ha

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Well, having spent the last week almost converting the docs to docbook 5, I
suggest we wait to hear what the docbook experts have to say first.  😉In
principle, it sounds good.  However, we have a very solid tool chain at the
 moment and I wonder if the same set of tools exists for this (draft)
standard.  When oasis adopts it, and there are good tool chains to support
it, it may be worth the switch.

But, let's not get involved too deeply in framework debates.  We are
extremely fortunate to have two technical writers on the team, which has
lead to great improvements already.

Maybe can develop the XSLT to convert the current docs to this format? In
the meantime, there are still outstanding technical issues which I will try
and resolve with the docs while our tech writers can focus on the content.

Thanks for sharing and it does look good.

Regards,
Jason

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 17:26 Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> A small glimpse at the (open) future of publishing:
>
>
> http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol10/print/Kleinfeld01/BalisageVol10-Kleinfeld01.html
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 12:11, Jason Pickering 
> wrote:
> > Perhaps this is possible, but not all of us have access to the UiO
> license,
> > and the license conditions may prevent onward distribution of this to
> > community members outside of UiO. Not sure. Anyway, it may be best to
> engage
> > with oXygen and see what the terms and conditions are, assuming this is
> the
> > direction we want to go.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Morten Olav Hansen 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> We already have university licenses for oXygen XML, maybe that also
> >> entitles us to a license for the web version? (if you want to use that
> >> instead)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Morten Olav Hansen
> >> Senior Engineer, DHIS 2
> >> University of Oslo
> >> http://www.dhis2.org
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Pickering
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Knut,
> >>>
> >>> If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)
> >>>
> >>> Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good
> for
> >>> more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but up
> >>> until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So,
> these
> >>> five licenses would go a long way.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Jason
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring 
> wrote:
> 
>  200$/month for 5 people, that is.
> 
>  Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps
> productivity.
> 
>  On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring 
> wrote:
> >
> > Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
> > Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author
> > for a maximum of 30 days
> >
> > Seems to be 200 USD per month?
> >
> > oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model
> with a
> > minimum commitment period of 12 months.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of
> Oxygen
> >> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub.
> It seems
> >> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated
> Serna.
> >> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome.
> >> Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or
> something which
> >> is actually fully functional and free?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html
> seems
> >>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
> >>>
> >>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
> >>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the
> idea
> >>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
> >>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
> >>> and the like.
> >>>
> >>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more
> and
> >>> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
> >>> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into
> >>> whatever
> >>> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting
> >>> getting
> >>> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the
> >>> Serna
> >>> free comments :-)  Back to work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> > Hi Bob,
> >>> >
> >>> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not
> so
> >>> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook
> offers,
> >>> > and
> >>> > there are 

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Bob Jolliffe]

A small glimpse at the (open) future of publishing:

http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol10/print/Kleinfeld01/BalisageVol10-Kleinfeld01.html

On 11 April 2016 at 12:11, Jason Pickering  wrote:
> Perhaps this is possible, but not all of us have access to the UiO license,
> and the license conditions may prevent onward distribution of this to
> community members outside of UiO. Not sure. Anyway, it may be best to engage
> with oXygen and see what the terms and conditions are, assuming this is the
> direction we want to go.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Morten Olav Hansen 
> wrote:
>>
>> We already have university licenses for oXygen XML, maybe that also
>> entitles us to a license for the web version? (if you want to use that
>> instead)
>>
>> --
>> Morten Olav Hansen
>> Senior Engineer, DHIS 2
>> University of Oslo
>> http://www.dhis2.org
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Pickering
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Knut,
>>>
>>> If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)
>>>
>>> Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good for
>>> more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but up
>>> until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So, these
>>> five licenses would go a long way.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:

 200$/month for 5 people, that is.

 Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps productivity.

 On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>
> Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
> Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author
> for a maximum of 30 days
>
> Seems to be 200 USD per month?
>
> oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model with a
> minimum commitment period of 12 months.
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering
>  wrote:
>>
>> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
>> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It 
>> seems
>> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
>> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome.
>> Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something 
>> which
>> is actually fully functional and free?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
>>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>>>
>>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
>>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
>>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
>>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
>>> and the like.
>>>
>>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
>>> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
>>> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into
>>> whatever
>>> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting
>>> getting
>>> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the
>>> Serna
>>> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Hi Bob,
>>> >
>>> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
>>> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers,
>>> > and
>>> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes,
>>> > at least
>>> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is
>>> > the
>>> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to
>>> > get to
>>> > work.
>>> >
>>> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of
>>> > docbook
>>> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for
>>> > either 4.4
>>> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find
>>> > somewhere
>>> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
>>> > combination
>>> > working, I never really investigated it further.
>>> >
>>> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of
>>> > the tool
>>> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or
>>> > 5.0.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Jason
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that
>>> >> problem
>

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Perhaps this is possible, but not all of us have access to the UiO license,
and the license conditions may prevent onward distribution of this to
community members outside of UiO. Not sure. Anyway, it may be best to
engage with oXygen and see what the terms and conditions are, assuming this
is the direction we want to go.



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Morten Olav Hansen 
wrote:

> We already have university licenses for oXygen XML, maybe that also
> entitles us to a license for the web version? (if you want to use that
> instead)
>
> --
> Morten Olav Hansen
> Senior Engineer, DHIS 2
> University of Oslo
> http://www.dhis2.org
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Pickering <
> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Knut,
>>
>> If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)
>>
>> Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good for
>> more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but up
>> until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So, these
>> five licenses would go a long way.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>>
>>> 200$/month for 5 people, that is.
>>>
>>> Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps productivity.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>>>
 Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
 Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author
 for a maximum of 30 days

 Seems to be 200 USD per month?

 oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model with a
 minimum commitment period of 12 months.

 On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering <
 jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems
> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome.
> Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which
> is actually fully functional and free?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> wrote:
>
>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>>
>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
>> and the like.
>>
>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
>> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
>> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
>> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
>> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
>> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering <
>> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Bob,
>> >
>> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
>> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers,
>> and
>> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes,
>> at least
>> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
>> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to
>> get to
>> > work.
>> >
>> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of
>> docbook
>> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for
>> either 4.4
>> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find
>> somewhere
>> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
>> combination
>> > working, I never really investigated it further.
>> >
>> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of
>> the tool
>> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or
>> 5.0.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe <
>> bobjolli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that
>> problem
>> >> solved :-)
>> >>
>> >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
>> >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is
>> some
>> >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet
>> it
>> >> works well.

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Morten Olav Hansen]

We already have university licenses for oXygen XML, maybe that also
entitles us to a license for the web version? (if you want to use that
instead)

-- 
Morten Olav Hansen
Senior Engineer, DHIS 2
University of Oslo
http://www.dhis2.org

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Pickering <
jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Knut,
>
> If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)
>
> Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good for
> more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but up
> until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So, these
> five licenses would go a long way.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>
>> 200$/month for 5 people, that is.
>>
>> Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps productivity.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>>
>>> Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
>>> Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author for
>>> a maximum of 30 days
>>>
>>> Seems to be 200 USD per month?
>>>
>>> oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model with a
>>> minimum commitment period of 12 months.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering <
>>> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
 from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems
 to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
 You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome.
 Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which
 is actually fully functional and free?

 Regards,
 Jason



 On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
 wrote:

> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>
> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
> and the like.
>
> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering 
> wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers,
> and
> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes,
> at least
> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get
> to
> > work.
> >
> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of
> docbook
> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for
> either 4.4
> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find
> somewhere
> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
> combination
> > working, I never really investigated it further.
> >
> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the
> tool
> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or
> 5.0.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that
> problem
> >> solved :-)
> >>
> >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
> >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
> >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
> >> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that
> might
> >> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively
> painless.
> >>
> >> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements
> rather
> >> than products.  And most of all, the content.
> >>
> >> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering <
> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
> >> >
> >> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
> >> > framewor

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Hi Knut,

If it would get you writing some docs, it would be well worth it. :)

Seriously though, these are floating licenses, so they would be good for
more than 5 people. We have two dedicated technical writers now, but up
until now, there have been few people actually writing the docs. So, these
five licenses would go a long way.

Regards,
Jason


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:

> 200$/month for 5 people, that is.
>
> Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps productivity.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>
>> Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
>> Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author for
>> a maximum of 30 days
>>
>> Seems to be 200 USD per month?
>>
>> oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model with a
>> minimum commitment period of 12 months.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering <
>> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
>>> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems
>>> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
>>> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome.
>>> Seems pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which
>>> is actually fully functional and free?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
 to suggest 5.0 is now supported.

 One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
 DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
 here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
 learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
 and the like.

 I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
 improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
 know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
 the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
 involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
 free comments :-)  Back to work.





 On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering 
 wrote:
 > Hi Bob,
 >
 > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
 > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers,
 and
 > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes,
 at least
 > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
 > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get
 to
 > work.
 >
 > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of
 docbook
 > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for
 either 4.4
 > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find
 somewhere
 > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
 combination
 > working, I never really investigated it further.
 >
 > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the
 tool
 > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or
 5.0.
 >
 > Regards,
 > Jason
 >
 >
 > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
 >> solved :-)
 >>
 >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
 >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
 >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
 >> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
 >> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively
 painless.
 >>
 >> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
 >> than products.  And most of all, the content.
 >>
 >> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering <
 jason.p.picker...@gmail.com>
 >> wrote:
 >> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
 >> >
 >> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
 >> > framework
 >> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no
 one can
 >> > agree.
 >> >
 >> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be
 >> > improved
 >> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from
 something
 >> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to
 outline
 >> > the
 >> > reasons for this change.
 >> >
 >> >
 >> >
 >> > 

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Knut Staring]

200$/month for 5 people, that is.

Not saying that price may not be worth paying if it helps productivity.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Knut Staring  wrote:

> Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
> Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author for a
> maximum of 30 days
>
> Seems to be 200 USD per month?
>
> oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model with a
> minimum commitment period of 12 months.
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering <
> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
>> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems
>> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
>> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome. Seems
>> pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which is
>> actually fully functional and free?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
>>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>>>
>>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
>>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
>>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
>>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
>>> and the like.
>>>
>>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
>>> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
>>> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
>>> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
>>> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
>>> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Bob,
>>> >
>>> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
>>> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers, and
>>> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes, at
>>> least
>>> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
>>> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get to
>>> > work.
>>> >
>>> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of
>>> docbook
>>> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for either
>>> 4.4
>>> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find
>>> somewhere
>>> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
>>> combination
>>> > working, I never really investigated it further.
>>> >
>>> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the
>>> tool
>>> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or 5.0.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Jason
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
>>> >> solved :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
>>> >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
>>> >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
>>> >> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
>>> >> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.
>>> >>
>>> >> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
>>> >> than products.  And most of all, the content.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering <
>>> jason.p.picker...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
>>> >> > framework
>>> >> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no
>>> one can
>>> >> > agree.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be
>>> >> > improved
>>> >> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from
>>> something
>>> >> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to
>>> outline
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > reasons for this change.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
>>> >> >> DocBook?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> http://dita.xml.org/
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe <
>>> bobjolli...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook
>>> through
>>> >> >>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and
>>> patent
>>> >> >>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fal

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Knut Staring]

Did you not have to sign up for the free trial license?
Our free trial includes all of the features of Oxygen XML Web Author for a
maximum of 30 days

Seems to be 200 USD per month?

oXygen XML Web Author uses a subscription floating license model with a
minimum commitment period of 12 months.

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering <
jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems
> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome. Seems
> pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which is
> actually fully functional and free?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> wrote:
>
>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>>
>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
>> and the like.
>>
>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
>> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
>> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
>> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
>> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
>> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Bob,
>> >
>> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
>> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers, and
>> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes, at
>> least
>> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
>> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get to
>> > work.
>> >
>> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of docbook
>> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for either
>> 4.4
>> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find somewhere
>> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
>> combination
>> > working, I never really investigated it further.
>> >
>> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the
>> tool
>> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or 5.0.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
>> >> solved :-)
>> >>
>> >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
>> >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
>> >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
>> >> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
>> >> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.
>> >>
>> >> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
>> >> than products.  And most of all, the content.
>> >>
>> >> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
>> >> > framework
>> >> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one
>> can
>> >> > agree.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be
>> >> > improved
>> >> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from
>> something
>> >> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to
>> outline
>> >> > the
>> >> > reasons for this change.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
>> >> >> DocBook?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://dita.xml.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe > >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook
>> through
>> >> >>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
>> >> >>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
>> >> >>> Not quite what I had in mind.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this
>> >> >>> direction.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > Hi everyone,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that
>> >> >>> >

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Cecilia Persson]

Very interesting! I'll test it this week. Would be great to have
integration with GitHub.
Kind regards,
Cecilia

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jason Pickering <
jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen
> from the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems
> to work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
> You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome. Seems
> pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which is
> actually fully functional and free?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> wrote:
>
>> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
>> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>>
>> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
>> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
>> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
>> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
>> and the like.
>>
>> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
>> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
>> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
>> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
>> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
>> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Bob,
>> >
>> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
>> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers, and
>> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes, at
>> least
>> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
>> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get to
>> > work.
>> >
>> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of docbook
>> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for either
>> 4.4
>> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find somewhere
>> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this
>> combination
>> > working, I never really investigated it further.
>> >
>> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the
>> tool
>> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or 5.0.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
>> >> solved :-)
>> >>
>> >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
>> >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
>> >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
>> >> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
>> >> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.
>> >>
>> >> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
>> >> than products.  And most of all, the content.
>> >>
>> >> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
>> >> > framework
>> >> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one
>> can
>> >> > agree.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be
>> >> > improved
>> >> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from
>> something
>> >> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to
>> outline
>> >> > the
>> >> > reasons for this change.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
>> >> >> DocBook?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://dita.xml.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe > >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook
>> through
>> >> >>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
>> >> >>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
>> >> >>> Not quite what I had in mind.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this
>> >> >>> direction.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > Hi everyone,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that
>> >> >>> > could
>> >> >>> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
>> >> >>> > resources. So
>> >> >>> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
>> >> 

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

I found what looks like a too-good-to-be-true WebApp version of Oxygen from
the Google Play Store, which offers integration with GitHub. It seems to
work. Might offer a new editor to replace my beloved deprecated Serna.
You can try it out by adding oXygen XML WebApp extension to Chrome. Seems
pretty sweet, but not sure if this is just a demo or something which is
actually fully functional and free?

Regards,
Jason



On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
> to suggest 5.0 is now supported.
>
> One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
> DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
> here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
> learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
> and the like.
>
> I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
> improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
> know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
> the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
> involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
> free comments :-)  Back to work.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering 
> wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
> > important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers, and
> > there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes, at
> least
> > which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
> > supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get to
> > work.
> >
> > The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of docbook
> > seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for either
> 4.4
> > or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find somewhere
> > where its actually available, but since I managed to get this combination
> > working, I never really investigated it further.
> >
> > So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the tool
> > chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or 5.0.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
> >> solved :-)
> >>
> >> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
> >> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
> >> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
> >> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
> >> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.
> >>
> >> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
> >> than products.  And most of all, the content.
> >>
> >> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
> >> >
> >> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
> >> > framework
> >> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one
> can
> >> > agree.
> >> >
> >> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be
> >> > improved
> >> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from
> something
> >> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to
> outline
> >> > the
> >> > reasons for this change.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
> >> >> DocBook?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://dita.xml.org/
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook
> through
> >> >>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
> >> >>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
> >> >>> Not quite what I had in mind.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this
> >> >>> direction.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
> >> >>> > Hi everyone,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that
> >> >>> > could
> >> >>> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
> >> >>> > resources. So
> >> >>> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know,
> >> >>> > called
> >> >>> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your
> >> >>> > thoughts.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
> >

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Bob Jolliffe]

http://docbkx-tools.sourceforge.net/docbkx-samples/manual.html seems
to suggest 5.0 is now supported.

One of the features i have seen touted in 5.1 which is also part of
DITA (and no doubt Flare) is support for "topics".  I guess the idea
here, to use the elearning jargon, is to be able to make reusabale
learning objects which can be differently combined in scorm modules
and the like.

I do agree that at the moment the priority really should be more and
improved content.  While we have that content in docbook xxx xml we
know that it is not going to be lost and can be shimmied into whatever
the toolchain of the future might be.  In fact i am regretting getting
involved in this thread at all, but I am glad you got rid of the Serna
free comments :-)  Back to work.





On 8 April 2016 at 04:13, Jason Pickering  wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
> important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers, and
> there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes, at least
> which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
> supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get to
> work.
>
> The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of docbook
> seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for either 4.4
> or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find somewhere
> where its actually available, but since I managed to get this combination
> working, I never really investigated it further.
>
> So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the tool
> chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or 5.0.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe  wrote:
>>
>> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
>> solved :-)
>>
>> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
>> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
>> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
>> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
>> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.
>>
>> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
>> than products.  And most of all, the content.
>>
>> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering 
>> wrote:
>> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
>> >
>> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
>> > framework
>> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one can
>> > agree.
>> >
>> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be
>> > improved
>> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from something
>> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to outline
>> > the
>> > reasons for this change.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
>> >> DocBook?
>> >>
>> >> http://dita.xml.org/
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
>> >>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
>> >>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
>> >>> Not quite what I had in mind.
>> >>>
>> >>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this
>> >>> direction.
>> >>>
>> >>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
>> >>> > Hi everyone,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that
>> >>> > could
>> >>> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
>> >>> > resources. So
>> >>> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know,
>> >>> > called
>> >>> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your
>> >>> > thoughts.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Rachael
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring 
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael
>> >>> >> and
>> >>> >> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be
>> >>> >> comfortable
>> >>> >> with
>> >>> >> etc).
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Knut
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Hi Jason, Lars
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
>> >>> >>> addressing the "thing".
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
>> >>> >>> text inserted into all our documents i

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Hi Bob,

Again, I think the fact that docbook has moved on is to us, not so
important. We are using a very small subset of what docbook offers, and
there are no real differences between 4.4 and 5.0 for our purposes, at
least which I have seen. One issue which we should investigate more is the
supposed improved indexing in 5.0, which I have not been able to get to
work.

The major issue with upgrading the dependency from 4.4 to 4.5 of docbook
seems to be the lack of a publicly available maven artifact for either 4.4
or 5.0. We could of course build it ourselves, or try and find somewhere
where its actually available, but since I managed to get this combination
working, I never really investigated it further.

So again to emphasize, the reason we are using 4.4 is because of the tool
chain (docbkx) and getting that to work with either Docbook 4.5 or 5.0.

Regards,
Jason


On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem
> solved :-)
>
> I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
> lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
> learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
> works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
> widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.
>
> But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
> than products.  And most of all, the content.
>
> On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering 
> wrote:
> > Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
> >
> > This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this
> framework
> > or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one can
> > agree.
> >
> > We have something which works. We have content which needs to be improved
> > and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from something
> > which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to outline
> the
> > reasons for this change.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
> >>
> >> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
> >> DocBook?
> >>
> >> http://dita.xml.org/
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
> >>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
> >>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
> >>> Not quite what I had in mind.
> >>>
> >>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this
> >>> direction.
> >>>
> >>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
> >>> > Hi everyone,
> >>> >
> >>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that
> could
> >>> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
> >>> > resources. So
> >>> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
> >>> >
> >>> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know,
> called
> >>> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
> >>> >
> >>> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your
> thoughts.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
> >>> >
> >>> > Rachael
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring 
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael
> and
> >>> >> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be
> comfortable
> >>> >> with
> >>> >> etc).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Knut
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe  >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Hi Jason, Lars
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
> >>> >>> addressing the "thing".
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
> >>> >>> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
> >>> >>> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy
> to
> >>> >>> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its
> possible
> >>> >>> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
> >>> >>> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
> >>> >>> delete the line.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
> >>> >>> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I
> open
> >>> >>> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately
> recognized
> >>> >>> and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode
> whether
> >>> >>> the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
> >>> >>> currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  Firs

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Bob Jolliffe]

Jason I saw your sed script to remove comments.  That is that problem solved :-)

I don't have any problem with the docbook toolchain and wouldn't
lightly consider changing it.  I think it works well.  There is some
learning involved and a shortage of non-technical tooling but yet it
works well.  I would consider upgrading to 5.0 (or 5.1) as that might
widen the scope of tooling available and would be relatively painless.

But I agree that we need to focus on the concrete requirements rather
than products.  And most of all, the content.

On 7 April 2016 at 14:40, Jason Pickering  wrote:
> Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.
>
> This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this framework
> or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one can
> agree.
>
> We have something which works. We have content which needs to be improved
> and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from something
> which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to outline the
> reasons for this change.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>>
>> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
>> DocBook?
>>
>> http://dita.xml.org/
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
>>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
>>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
>>> Not quite what I had in mind.
>>>
>>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>> >
>>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that could
>>> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
>>> > resources. So
>>> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
>>> >
>>> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know, called
>>> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
>>> >
>>> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
>>> >
>>> > Rachael
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael and
>>> >> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be comfortable
>>> >> with
>>> >> etc).
>>> >>
>>> >> Knut
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Jason, Lars
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
>>> >>> addressing the "thing".
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
>>> >>> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
>>> >>> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
>>> >>> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
>>> >>> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
>>> >>> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
>>> >>> delete the line.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
>>> >>> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
>>> >>> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately recognized
>>> >>> and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode whether
>>> >>> the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
>>> >>> currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  First is that Serna
>>> >>> Free seems no longer to be maintained (as a free version).  One
>>> >>> consequence of this being that using it keeps us frozen in time at
>>> >>> docbook 4.4.  The last release of the docbook 4.x series was 4.5 back
>>> >>> in 2006.  The 5.0 (and now 5.1) series has been out for quite a long
>>> >>> time now (2009?).  AFAIK the only reason for sticking with 4.x has
>>> >>> been the availability of Serna Free.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (Which is not a small thing.  The sad truth is that  another good
>>> >>> free
>>> >>> candidate for docbook editing by non-technical authors hasn't ever
>>> >>> emerged.  Of course if you are more than a bit geeky then emacs does
>>> >>> a
>>> >>> good job.  But even I don't use emacs anymore for editing docbook
>>> >>> documents.  I use oxygen, which is not free.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Two thoughts come to mind:
>>> >>> (i) it probably really makes sense to rejoin the (docbook) world and
>>> >>> move from 4.4 to 5.0.  Particularly if the now defunct Serna Free is
>>> >>> the only factor holding us back.  I understand that there are
>>> >>> transforms available to make this a painless journey.  The

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Perhaps, but see my earlier mail regarding framework wars.

This is the same discussion we are having about testing, use this framework
or that framework. However, there are still too few tests, as no one can
agree.

We have something which works. We have content which needs to be improved
and updated. If there is a compelling reason to move away from something
which, albeit somewhat dated ...works, maybe it would be good to outline
the reasons for this change.



On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:

> I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to
> DocBook?
>
> http://dita.xml.org/
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> wrote:
>
>> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
>> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
>> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
>> Not quite what I had in mind.
>>
>> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this direction.
>>
>> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that could
>> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
>> resources. So
>> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
>> >
>> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know, called
>> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
>> >
>> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
>> >
>> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
>> >
>> > Rachael
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael and
>> >> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be comfortable
>> with
>> >> etc).
>> >>
>> >> Knut
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Jason, Lars
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
>> >>> addressing the "thing".
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
>> >>> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
>> >>> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
>> >>> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
>> >>> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
>> >>> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
>> >>> delete the line.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
>> >>> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
>> >>> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related to
>> >>> the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately recognized
>> >>> and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode whether
>> >>> the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
>> >>> currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?
>> >>>
>> >>> Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  First is that Serna
>> >>> Free seems no longer to be maintained (as a free version).  One
>> >>> consequence of this being that using it keeps us frozen in time at
>> >>> docbook 4.4.  The last release of the docbook 4.x series was 4.5 back
>> >>> in 2006.  The 5.0 (and now 5.1) series has been out for quite a long
>> >>> time now (2009?).  AFAIK the only reason for sticking with 4.x has
>> >>> been the availability of Serna Free.
>> >>>
>> >>> (Which is not a small thing.  The sad truth is that  another good free
>> >>> candidate for docbook editing by non-technical authors hasn't ever
>> >>> emerged.  Of course if you are more than a bit geeky then emacs does a
>> >>> good job.  But even I don't use emacs anymore for editing docbook
>> >>> documents.  I use oxygen, which is not free.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Two thoughts come to mind:
>> >>> (i) it probably really makes sense to rejoin the (docbook) world and
>> >>> move from 4.4 to 5.0.  Particularly if the now defunct Serna Free is
>> >>> the only factor holding us back.  I understand that there are
>> >>> transforms available to make this a painless journey.  The best
>> >>> available in terms of free editing tools with a strong docbook focus
>> >>> seems to be the eclipse DEP4E plugin.  Otherwise there are the
>> >>> non-free tools as well as host of xml schema aware editors.
>> >>> Admittedly none of these really qualify as eminently suitable for
>> >>> non-technical authors so the problem isn't really completely solved,
>> >>> but maybe improved slightly.
>> >>>
>> >>> (ii) more radically, it might be time to consider moving from docbook
>> >>> altogether.  There are a host of "cool" alternatives (markdown and
>> >>> friends) none of which I am fond of, but they have enthusiastic
>> >>> supporters.  To me they all seem like endless reinventions of
>> >>> roff/nroff/groff and certain

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Hi Bob and Rachel,

Good to see we are discussing this and I think we should try and keep an
open discussion about what is best for the project. If we roll things back
a few years, there was no documentation. We discussed some alternatives on
this list, and came to a common decision (disclaimer: I suggested it) that
we use DocBook. It seemed like a good alternative at the time. There was a
decent editor (Serna) which was free, and it solved many problems with less
structured formats like WIkis and Word. Some years have gone by, and the
docs have lumbered along, and I think its a great initiative on the part of
University of Oslo to hire two full time technical writers.

Having said all of that, I hope we do not devolve into framework wars or
get distracted by too many things. The content of the docs need to be
improved. I think that is the problem we are trying ultimately to solve. To
provide better more useful documentation to users of the software.

A few points I differ with you both on a few points.

1) I have added a script in the last commit to clean the plug Serna leaves
as comments. They have been there for years and no one has seemed to
notice, but we can get rid of them now pretty easily.

2) Serna is still under active development, its just commercial. I think in
the spirit of the project, we should not demand anyone to not use a
particular tool, even if is not under active development. I like Serna. Its
simple and gets the job done. I like the feel of using a WYSIWYG editor,
even though emacs or Oxygen might be better tools. Its simply my preference
and I will continue to use it. But, your point about the unsightly comments
is well taken, so I have tried to rectify that now.

3) The main reason for not moving on to a newer version was
a) It was not needed. We use a very small subset of docbooks features, and
there was no need to move to a newer version.
b) Some dependencies of Docbook 4.5 (Serna supports this version) and 5.0
were not publicly available in a maven repor at the time the POM was
written. 4.4 was and it met our needs, and there has been no compelling
reason to upgrade.

4) We discussed this last year at the experts academy and I think the
consensus was we would stick with DocBook, but continue to look for
potentially better solutions. Proprietary solutions were not considered,
and I think would really be against the spirit of the project.

Anyway, I think it would be best to table the discussion of some major
change of new frameworks until we can discuss further in Oslo at the
academy, with the community about what the most appropriate solution would
be. In the mean time, I think we should simply focus on the content. At the
point in time we need to move to something else (be it MarkDown or MadCap
or what have you), at least everything is XML and if its worth saving, it
could always be transformed somehow.

Regards,
Jason


On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
> Not quite what I had in mind.
>
> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this direction.
>
> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that could
> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
> resources. So
> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
> >
> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know, called
> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
> >
> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
> >
> > Rachael
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
> >>
> >> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael and
> >> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be comfortable
> with
> >> etc).
> >>
> >> Knut
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jason, Lars
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
> >>> addressing the "thing".
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
> >>> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
> >>> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
> >>> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
> >>> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
> >>> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
> >>> delete the line.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
> >>> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
> >>> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related to
> >>>

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Knut Staring]

I see that Flare supports DITA, would that be a good alternative to DocBook?

http://dita.xml.org/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
> to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
> encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
> Not quite what I had in mind.
>
> I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this direction.
>
> On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that could
> > handle big documentation projects, translation files and other
> resources. So
> > it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
> >
> > We were considering looking into a solution which you may know, called
> > MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
> >
> > If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
> >
> > Rachael
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
> >>
> >> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael and
> >> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be comfortable
> with
> >> etc).
> >>
> >> Knut
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jason, Lars
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
> >>> addressing the "thing".
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
> >>> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
> >>> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
> >>> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
> >>> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
> >>> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
> >>> delete the line.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
> >>> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
> >>> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related to
> >>> the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately recognized
> >>> and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode whether
> >>> the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
> >>> currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?
> >>>
> >>> Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  First is that Serna
> >>> Free seems no longer to be maintained (as a free version).  One
> >>> consequence of this being that using it keeps us frozen in time at
> >>> docbook 4.4.  The last release of the docbook 4.x series was 4.5 back
> >>> in 2006.  The 5.0 (and now 5.1) series has been out for quite a long
> >>> time now (2009?).  AFAIK the only reason for sticking with 4.x has
> >>> been the availability of Serna Free.
> >>>
> >>> (Which is not a small thing.  The sad truth is that  another good free
> >>> candidate for docbook editing by non-technical authors hasn't ever
> >>> emerged.  Of course if you are more than a bit geeky then emacs does a
> >>> good job.  But even I don't use emacs anymore for editing docbook
> >>> documents.  I use oxygen, which is not free.)
> >>>
> >>> Two thoughts come to mind:
> >>> (i) it probably really makes sense to rejoin the (docbook) world and
> >>> move from 4.4 to 5.0.  Particularly if the now defunct Serna Free is
> >>> the only factor holding us back.  I understand that there are
> >>> transforms available to make this a painless journey.  The best
> >>> available in terms of free editing tools with a strong docbook focus
> >>> seems to be the eclipse DEP4E plugin.  Otherwise there are the
> >>> non-free tools as well as host of xml schema aware editors.
> >>> Admittedly none of these really qualify as eminently suitable for
> >>> non-technical authors so the problem isn't really completely solved,
> >>> but maybe improved slightly.
> >>>
> >>> (ii) more radically, it might be time to consider moving from docbook
> >>> altogether.  There are a host of "cool" alternatives (markdown and
> >>> friends) none of which I am fond of, but they have enthusiastic
> >>> supporters.  To me they all seem like endless reinventions of
> >>> roff/nroff/groff and certainly lack the maturity of docbook.   But
> >>> maybe the world has moved to a stage that its possible to consider
> >>> editing html5/css3 documents directly?  Certainly there is
> >>> considerable user friendly editing tools available.  And conversion to
> >>> pdf seems not to be a problem.  Though whether this would cause the
> >>> clean structure of documents to descend into anarchy I don't really
> >>> know.
> >>>
> >>> My 2 cents.  I would certainly advocate (i) above (though admit its a
> >>> strong response to just getting rid of Serna Free comments).  (ii)
> >>> frightens me quite a bit. Certainly would be a lot

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Bob Jolliffe]

On a spectrum between low-level standardized technical docbook through
to "user friendly" (use Word), vendor-locked proprietary and patent
encumbered technology, this one seems to fall on the far right :-)
Not quite what I had in mind.

I can see the attraction but I would be very wary to go in this direction.

On 7 April 2016 at 13:52, Rachael Brooke  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Cecilia and I have been thinking about trying out a new tool that could
> handle big documentation projects, translation files and other resources. So
> it's good timing that this issue is being raised by you.
>
> We were considering looking into a solution which you may know, called
> MadCap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/.
>
> If you have any other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up - we're investigating!
>
> Rachael
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Knut Staring  wrote:
>>
>> Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael and
>> Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be comfortable with
>> etc).
>>
>> Knut
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jason, Lars
>>>
>>> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
>>> addressing the "thing".
>>>
>>> I agree with Lars that having the ""
>>> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
>>> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
>>> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
>>> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
>>> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
>>> delete the line.
>>>
>>> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
>>> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
>>> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related to
>>> the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately recognized
>>> and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode whether
>>> the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
>>> currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?
>>>
>>> Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  First is that Serna
>>> Free seems no longer to be maintained (as a free version).  One
>>> consequence of this being that using it keeps us frozen in time at
>>> docbook 4.4.  The last release of the docbook 4.x series was 4.5 back
>>> in 2006.  The 5.0 (and now 5.1) series has been out for quite a long
>>> time now (2009?).  AFAIK the only reason for sticking with 4.x has
>>> been the availability of Serna Free.
>>>
>>> (Which is not a small thing.  The sad truth is that  another good free
>>> candidate for docbook editing by non-technical authors hasn't ever
>>> emerged.  Of course if you are more than a bit geeky then emacs does a
>>> good job.  But even I don't use emacs anymore for editing docbook
>>> documents.  I use oxygen, which is not free.)
>>>
>>> Two thoughts come to mind:
>>> (i) it probably really makes sense to rejoin the (docbook) world and
>>> move from 4.4 to 5.0.  Particularly if the now defunct Serna Free is
>>> the only factor holding us back.  I understand that there are
>>> transforms available to make this a painless journey.  The best
>>> available in terms of free editing tools with a strong docbook focus
>>> seems to be the eclipse DEP4E plugin.  Otherwise there are the
>>> non-free tools as well as host of xml schema aware editors.
>>> Admittedly none of these really qualify as eminently suitable for
>>> non-technical authors so the problem isn't really completely solved,
>>> but maybe improved slightly.
>>>
>>> (ii) more radically, it might be time to consider moving from docbook
>>> altogether.  There are a host of "cool" alternatives (markdown and
>>> friends) none of which I am fond of, but they have enthusiastic
>>> supporters.  To me they all seem like endless reinventions of
>>> roff/nroff/groff and certainly lack the maturity of docbook.   But
>>> maybe the world has moved to a stage that its possible to consider
>>> editing html5/css3 documents directly?  Certainly there is
>>> considerable user friendly editing tools available.  And conversion to
>>> pdf seems not to be a problem.  Though whether this would cause the
>>> clean structure of documents to descend into anarchy I don't really
>>> know.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents.  I would certainly advocate (i) above (though admit its a
>>> strong response to just getting rid of Serna Free comments).  (ii)
>>> frightens me quite a bit. Certainly would be a lot of work.
>>>
>>> In the end comes down to (i) who will do most of the documentation and
>>> what do they like or tolerate, (ii) what effort is justified to fiddle
>>> with what is really quite a nice looking set of existing
>>> documentation.
>>>
>>> For the moment lets at least agree to keep those horrible comments out.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On 6

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Knut Staring]

Would be good to hear from our new documentation experts (Rachael and
Cecilia) on this issue (what kinds of tools they would be comfortable with
etc).

Knut

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bob Jolliffe  wrote:

> Hi Jason, Lars
>
> I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
> addressing the "thing".
>
> I agree with Lars that having the ""
> text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
> If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
> just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
> to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
> automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
> delete the line.
>
> I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
> comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
> the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related to
> the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately recognized
> and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode whether
> the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
> currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?
>
> Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  First is that Serna
> Free seems no longer to be maintained (as a free version).  One
> consequence of this being that using it keeps us frozen in time at
> docbook 4.4.  The last release of the docbook 4.x series was 4.5 back
> in 2006.  The 5.0 (and now 5.1) series has been out for quite a long
> time now (2009?).  AFAIK the only reason for sticking with 4.x has
> been the availability of Serna Free.
>
> (Which is not a small thing.  The sad truth is that  another good free
> candidate for docbook editing by non-technical authors hasn't ever
> emerged.  Of course if you are more than a bit geeky then emacs does a
> good job.  But even I don't use emacs anymore for editing docbook
> documents.  I use oxygen, which is not free.)
>
> Two thoughts come to mind:
> (i) it probably really makes sense to rejoin the (docbook) world and
> move from 4.4 to 5.0.  Particularly if the now defunct Serna Free is
> the only factor holding us back.  I understand that there are
> transforms available to make this a painless journey.  The best
> available in terms of free editing tools with a strong docbook focus
> seems to be the eclipse DEP4E plugin.  Otherwise there are the
> non-free tools as well as host of xml schema aware editors.
> Admittedly none of these really qualify as eminently suitable for
> non-technical authors so the problem isn't really completely solved,
> but maybe improved slightly.
>
> (ii) more radically, it might be time to consider moving from docbook
> altogether.  There are a host of "cool" alternatives (markdown and
> friends) none of which I am fond of, but they have enthusiastic
> supporters.  To me they all seem like endless reinventions of
> roff/nroff/groff and certainly lack the maturity of docbook.   But
> maybe the world has moved to a stage that its possible to consider
> editing html5/css3 documents directly?  Certainly there is
> considerable user friendly editing tools available.  And conversion to
> pdf seems not to be a problem.  Though whether this would cause the
> clean structure of documents to descend into anarchy I don't really
> know.
>
> My 2 cents.  I would certainly advocate (i) above (though admit its a
> strong response to just getting rid of Serna Free comments).  (ii)
> frightens me quite a bit. Certainly would be a lot of work.
>
> In the end comes down to (i) who will do most of the documentation and
> what do they like or tolerate, (ii) what effort is justified to fiddle
> with what is really quite a nice looking set of existing
> documentation.
>
> For the moment lets at least agree to keep those horrible comments out.
>
> Bob
>
> On 6 April 2016 at 11:31, Jason Pickering 
> wrote:
> > For instance, perhaps this
> >
> > http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic3658.html
> >
> > which seems to describe a means of getting around comments.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Jason Pickering
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Lars,
> >> I think there must be a way around this, and I would not be in favor at
> >> all of ditching Serna. Its a good tool and not everyone has access to a
> >> relatively expensive commercial tool like Oxygen.
> >>
> >> Serna Free inserts this automatically unfortunately when it saves the
> >> document, but lets look for a look around to deal with this in Oxygen.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Lars Helge Øverland 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> re the documentation.The Serna editor horribly inserts a
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> comment in all files it creates before the DTD. This throws off Oxygen
> >>> from detecting it to be a Docbook format. Lets not use Serna anymore
> or at
> >>> least make sure we don't get comments in the beginning of docb

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Bob Jolliffe]

Hi Jason, Lars

I am not sure the link about oxygen nested comments is really
addressing the "thing".

I agree with Lars that having the ""
text inserted into all our documents is ugly, wrong and misleading.
If you are using Serna Free I think it might be a simple courtesy to
just strip those comments before committing.  Of course its possible
to forget and maybe some sort of removal hook could be configured
automatically (sed, xsltproc ..) but its maybe not so hard to just
delete the line.

I am not sure of what the problem is with oxygen encountering these
comments are though.  Maybe I also don't get the "thing" :-)  I open
the docbook files with oxygen and don't encounter a problem related to
the comment.  The docbook4 "type" seems to be immediately recognized
and I get a Docbook4 menu appear when I switch to author mode whether
the comment is there or not.  Is it an oxygen version issue (I
currently use 17.1) or is there some other issue I am missing?

Though I think there are deeper issues at play.  First is that Serna
Free seems no longer to be maintained (as a free version).  One
consequence of this being that using it keeps us frozen in time at
docbook 4.4.  The last release of the docbook 4.x series was 4.5 back
in 2006.  The 5.0 (and now 5.1) series has been out for quite a long
time now (2009?).  AFAIK the only reason for sticking with 4.x has
been the availability of Serna Free.

(Which is not a small thing.  The sad truth is that  another good free
candidate for docbook editing by non-technical authors hasn't ever
emerged.  Of course if you are more than a bit geeky then emacs does a
good job.  But even I don't use emacs anymore for editing docbook
documents.  I use oxygen, which is not free.)

Two thoughts come to mind:
(i) it probably really makes sense to rejoin the (docbook) world and
move from 4.4 to 5.0.  Particularly if the now defunct Serna Free is
the only factor holding us back.  I understand that there are
transforms available to make this a painless journey.  The best
available in terms of free editing tools with a strong docbook focus
seems to be the eclipse DEP4E plugin.  Otherwise there are the
non-free tools as well as host of xml schema aware editors.
Admittedly none of these really qualify as eminently suitable for
non-technical authors so the problem isn't really completely solved,
but maybe improved slightly.

(ii) more radically, it might be time to consider moving from docbook
altogether.  There are a host of "cool" alternatives (markdown and
friends) none of which I am fond of, but they have enthusiastic
supporters.  To me they all seem like endless reinventions of
roff/nroff/groff and certainly lack the maturity of docbook.   But
maybe the world has moved to a stage that its possible to consider
editing html5/css3 documents directly?  Certainly there is
considerable user friendly editing tools available.  And conversion to
pdf seems not to be a problem.  Though whether this would cause the
clean structure of documents to descend into anarchy I don't really
know.

My 2 cents.  I would certainly advocate (i) above (though admit its a
strong response to just getting rid of Serna Free comments).  (ii)
frightens me quite a bit. Certainly would be a lot of work.

In the end comes down to (i) who will do most of the documentation and
what do they like or tolerate, (ii) what effort is justified to fiddle
with what is really quite a nice looking set of existing
documentation.

For the moment lets at least agree to keep those horrible comments out.

Bob

On 6 April 2016 at 11:31, Jason Pickering  wrote:
> For instance, perhaps this
>
> http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic3658.html
>
> which seems to describe a means of getting around comments.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Jason Pickering
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lars,
>> I think there must be a way around this, and I would not be in favor at
>> all of ditching Serna. Its a good tool and not everyone has access to a
>> relatively expensive commercial tool like Oxygen.
>>
>> Serna Free inserts this automatically unfortunately when it saves the
>> document, but lets look for a look around to deal with this in Oxygen.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Lars Helge Øverland 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> re the documentation.The Serna editor horribly inserts a
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> comment in all files it creates before the DTD. This throws off Oxygen
>>> from detecting it to be a Docbook format. Lets not use Serna anymore or at
>>> least make sure we don't get comments in the beginning of docbook xml files.
>>>
>>> Lars
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lars Helge Øverland
>>> Lead developer, DHIS 2
>>> University of Oslo
>>> Skype: larshelgeoverland
>>> http://www.dhis2.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
>>> Post to : dhis2-documenters@lists.launchpad.net
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
>>> More help   : h

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

For instance, perhaps this

http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic3658.html

which seems to describe a means of getting around comments.



On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Jason Pickering  wrote:

> Hi Lars,
> I think there must be a way around this, and I would not be in favor at
> all of ditching Serna. Its a good tool and not everyone has access to a
> relatively expensive commercial tool like Oxygen.
>
> Serna Free inserts this automatically unfortunately when it saves the
> document, but lets look for a look around to deal with this in Oxygen.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Lars Helge Øverland 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> re the documentation.The Serna editor horribly inserts a
>>
>> 
>>
>> comment in all files it creates before the DTD. This throws off Oxygen
>> from detecting it to be a Docbook format. Lets not use Serna anymore or at
>> least make sure we don't get comments in the beginning of docbook xml files.
>>
>> Lars
>>
>> --
>> Lars Helge Øverland
>> Lead developer, DHIS 2
>> University of Oslo
>> Skype: larshelgeoverland
>> http://www.dhis2.org 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
>> Post to : dhis2-documenters@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jason P. Pickering
> email: jason.p.picker...@gmail.com
> tel:+46764147049
>



-- 
Jason P. Pickering
email: jason.p.picker...@gmail.com
tel:+46764147049
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
Post to : dhis2-documenters@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Jason Pickering]

Hi Lars,
I think there must be a way around this, and I would not be in favor at all
of ditching Serna. Its a good tool and not everyone has access to a
relatively expensive commercial tool like Oxygen.

Serna Free inserts this automatically unfortunately when it saves the
document, but lets look for a look around to deal with this in Oxygen.

Regards,
Jason


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Lars Helge Øverland  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> re the documentation.The Serna editor horribly inserts a
>
> 
>
> comment in all files it creates before the DTD. This throws off Oxygen
> from detecting it to be a Docbook format. Lets not use Serna anymore or at
> least make sure we don't get comments in the beginning of docbook xml files.
>
> Lars
>
> --
> Lars Helge Øverland
> Lead developer, DHIS 2
> University of Oslo
> Skype: larshelgeoverland
> http://www.dhis2.org 
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
> Post to : dhis2-documenters@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>


-- 
Jason P. Pickering
email: jason.p.picker...@gmail.com
tel:+46764147049
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
Post to : dhis2-documenters@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Dhis2-documenters] no more serna

[Lars Helge Øverland]

Hi,

re the documentation.The Serna editor horribly inserts a



comment in all files it creates before the DTD. This throws off Oxygen from
detecting it to be a Docbook format. Lets not use Serna anymore or at least
make sure we don't get comments in the beginning of docbook xml files.

Lars

-- 
Lars Helge Øverland
Lead developer, DHIS 2
University of Oslo
Skype: larshelgeoverland
http://www.dhis2.org 
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
Post to : dhis2-documenters@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-documenters
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp