Re: V4L docs and docbook
Em Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:28:13 + Russel Winderescreveu: > On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 07:28 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:10:14 -0200 > > […] > > > > Stupid me: it should be just: > > asciidoc book.asciidoc > > > > Still, there are lots of broken things there, and lots of errors when > > building it: > > https://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/media-kabi-docs-test/book.html > > > > Ok, I would expect the need to handling some things manually, but > > it worries that it broke the tables. For example, see > > "Table 1. Control IDs" at https://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/media-kabi > > -docs-test/book.html > > > > It was mapped as a 3 cols table, but this is how it should be, > > instead: > > https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis/control.html > > > > As this table has actually 5 cols, because some controls have a list > > of multiple values (see V4L2_CID_COLORFX for example). > > I will not be able to do anything to help with any of this today, but I > can try and take a look tomorrow. > > Certainly an automated translation will not do all the complicated > bits, that will need manual intervention. True, although I would feel more comfortable if we can use a tool for those nested tables, as there are a lot of them at the V4L2 part of the media kAPI doc. It would probably worth to either write a script or to patch an existing tool like pandoc to make it work with nested tables. > I may well be able to assist > on this. I think the transform from DocBook/XML is worth a bit of up > front effort now, so as to make everything so much easier for all > concerned in the future. Obviously I do not have data relating to this > project, just experience and anecdotal evidence from others. Thanks! -- Thanks, Mauro pgpacpHMbBfzT.pgp Description: Assinatura digital OpenPGP
Re: V4L docs and docbook
Em Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:37:41 +0200 Jani Nikulaescreveu: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Are there any tools that would convert from DocBook to ASCIIDoc? > > I used pandoc when I tested the asciidoc pipeline. Something along the > lines of this for filtering docbook in stdin to asciidoc in stdout: > > pandoc --atx-headers -f docbook -t asciidoc > Results are at: https://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/media-kabi-docs-test/pandoc_asciidoc/ pandoc/asciidoc also broke the tables. Thanks, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: V4L docs and docbook
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Mauro Carvalho Chehabwrote: > Are there any tools that would convert from DocBook to ASCIIDoc? I used pandoc when I tested the asciidoc pipeline. Something along the lines of this for filtering docbook in stdin to asciidoc in stdout: pandoc --atx-headers -f docbook -t asciidoc BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: V4L docs and docbook
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Russel Winderwrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 21:51 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> […] >> >> We have 2 types of documentation for the Kernel part of the >> subsystem, >> Both using DocBook: >> - The uAPI documentation: >> https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis >> - The kAPI documentation: >> https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-internals/device-drivers/ >> mediadev.html > […] > > I may not be introducing new data here but… > > Whilst ReStructuredText and Markdown are fairly popular text markup > languages, they are not related to the DocBook/XML toolchain. > > Many people, especially authors of books etc. are not really willing to > write in DocBook/XML even though it is the re-purposable representation > of choice for most of the major publishers. This led to ASCIIDoc. > > ASCIIDoc is a plain text markup language in the same way > ReStructuredText and Markdown are, but it's intention was always to be > a lightweight front end to DocBook/XML so as to allow authors to write > in a nice markup language but work with the DocBook/XML toolchain. We have been looking at asciidoc too, so much so that there are draft patches by Jon and me to build some of the documentation from asciidoc source. Both are in the thread starting at [1]. But we really need to consider reStructuredText too [2]. I think this thread is about figuring out how much we really depend on DocBook. There is a lot of pain in dealing with DocBook, especially as a source format, but also as an intermediate format. If we can produce the end results (html, pdf, man, ...) from the source markup directly, it's a win. > ASCIIDoc has gained quite a strong following. So much so that it now > has a life of its own separate from the DocBook/XML tool chain. There > is ASCIIDoctor which generates PDF, HTML,… from the source without > using DocBook/XML, yet the source can quite happily go through a > DocBook/XML toolchain as well. See some of the other threads. Asciidoc seems to be in maintenance mode. Asciidoctor depends on a ruby environment which is not met with enthusiasm. The HTML output can only be chunked (split to several pages) via the DocBook output. Sphinx is active, doesn't add a lot of new dependencies, and seems to be able to natively output all the end results people have so far said they care about. > Many of the open source projects I am involved with are now using > ASCIIDoctor as the documentation form. This has increased the number of > non-main-contributor contributions via pull requests. It is so much > easier to work with ASCIIDoc(tor) source than DocBook/XML source. I'm hopeful this holds for any of the lightweight markups. BR, Jani. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1453764522-29030-1-git-send-email-cor...@lwn.net [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160213145317.247c6...@lwn.net -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: V4L docs and docbook
Em Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:31:14 -0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehabescreveu: > Em Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:17:00 + > Russel Winder escreveu: > > > On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 21:51 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > […] > > > > > > We have 2 types of documentation for the Kernel part of the > > > subsystem, > > > Both using DocBook: > > > - The uAPI documentation: > > > https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis > > > - The kAPI documentation: > > > https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-internals/device-drivers/ > > > mediadev.html > > […] > > > > I may not be introducing new data here but… > > > > Whilst ReStructuredText and Markdown are fairly popular text markup > > languages, they are not related to the DocBook/XML toolchain. > > > > Many people, especially authors of books etc. are not really willing to > > write in DocBook/XML even though it is the re-purposable representation > > of choice for most of the major publishers. This led to ASCIIDoc. > > > > ASCIIDoc is a plain text markup language in the same way > > ReStructuredText and Markdown are, but it's intention was always to be > > a lightweight front end to DocBook/XML so as to allow authors to write > > in a nice markup language but work with the DocBook/XML toolchain. > > > > ASCIIDoc has gained quite a strong following. So much so that it now > > has a life of its own separate from the DocBook/XML tool chain. There > > is ASCIIDoctor which generates PDF, HTML,… from the source without > > using DocBook/XML, yet the source can quite happily go through a > > DocBook/XML toolchain as well. > > > > Many of the open source projects I am involved with are now using > > ASCIIDoctor as the documentation form. This has increased the number of > > non-main-contributor contributions via pull requests. It is so much > > easier to work with ASCIIDoc(tor) source than DocBook/XML source. > > Are there any tools that would convert from DocBook to ASCIIDoc? Answering myself: I found one tool at: https://github.com/oreillymedia/docbook2asciidoc That seemed to work. I ran it with: $ make DOCBOOKS=media_api.xml htmldocs 2>&1 | grep -v "element.*: validity error : ID .* already defined" $ xmllint --noent --postvalid "$PWD/Documentation/DocBook/media_api.xml" >/tmp/x.xml 2>/dev/null $ java -jar saxon9he.jar -s /tmp/x.xml -o book.asciidoc d2a_docbook.xsl chunk-output=true And it produced a series of documents, that I stored at: https://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/media-kabi-docs-test/ I noticed, however, that it kept some things using DocBook xml. Perhaps because some things cannot be translated to markup (see appa.asciidoc)? Also, converting them to HTML produced me some errors, but perhaps because I don't know what I'm doing ;) What I did was: for i in book-docinfo.xml *.asciidoc; do asciidoc $i; done errors enclosed. Yet, it seems there are some hope on using asciidoc for the kAPI documentation. Thanks, Mauro --- asciidoc: ERROR: book.asciidoc: line 9: only book doctypes can contain level 0 sections asciidoc: ERROR: ch01.asciidoc: line 588: only book doctypes can contain level 0 sections asciidoc: ERROR: ch02.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: ERROR: ch03.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: ERROR: ch03.asciidoc: line 370: illegal style name: capture example asciidoc: ERROR: ch04.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: ERROR: ch04.asciidoc: line 719: illegal style name: to do asciidoc: ERROR: ch05.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: ERROR: ch06.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: ERROR: ch07.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: ERROR: ch07.asciidoc: line 907: illegal style name: Solution? asciidoc: ERROR: ch07.asciidoc: line 2208: illegal style name: to do - OSS/ALSA asciidoc: ERROR: appa.asciidoc: line 3: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: WARNING: appa.asciidoc: line 7: missing style: [blockdef-pass]: appendix asciidoc: ERROR: appb.asciidoc: line 2: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: WARNING: appb.asciidoc: line 7: missing style: [paradef-default]: appendix asciidoc: ERROR: appc.asciidoc: line 3: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: WARNING: appc.asciidoc: line 7: missing style: [blockdef-pass]: appendix asciidoc: ERROR: appd.asciidoc: line 3: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: WARNING: appd.asciidoc: line 7: missing style: [blockdef-pass]: appendix asciidoc: ERROR: appe.asciidoc: line 3: section title not permitted in delimited block asciidoc: WARNING: appe.asciidoc: line 5: missing style: [paradef-default]: appendix asciidoc: ERROR: book.asciidoc: line 142: section title not permitted in delimited block
Re: V4L docs and docbook
Em Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:17:00 + Russel Winderescreveu: > On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 21:51 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > […] > > > > We have 2 types of documentation for the Kernel part of the > > subsystem, > > Both using DocBook: > > - The uAPI documentation: > > https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis > > - The kAPI documentation: > > https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-internals/device-drivers/ > > mediadev.html > […] > > I may not be introducing new data here but… > > Whilst ReStructuredText and Markdown are fairly popular text markup > languages, they are not related to the DocBook/XML toolchain. > > Many people, especially authors of books etc. are not really willing to > write in DocBook/XML even though it is the re-purposable representation > of choice for most of the major publishers. This led to ASCIIDoc. > > ASCIIDoc is a plain text markup language in the same way > ReStructuredText and Markdown are, but it's intention was always to be > a lightweight front end to DocBook/XML so as to allow authors to write > in a nice markup language but work with the DocBook/XML toolchain. > > ASCIIDoc has gained quite a strong following. So much so that it now > has a life of its own separate from the DocBook/XML tool chain. There > is ASCIIDoctor which generates PDF, HTML,… from the source without > using DocBook/XML, yet the source can quite happily go through a > DocBook/XML toolchain as well. > > Many of the open source projects I am involved with are now using > ASCIIDoctor as the documentation form. This has increased the number of > non-main-contributor contributions via pull requests. It is so much > easier to work with ASCIIDoc(tor) source than DocBook/XML source. Are there any tools that would convert from DocBook to ASCIIDoc? Thanks, Mauro pgp06fUKfAiNJ.pgp Description: Assinatura digital OpenPGP
Re: V4L docs and docbook
Hi Jon, On 02/17/2016 10:52 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Hey, Mauro, > > There's been a conversation going on that I keep meaning to bring you > into. In short, there's a fair amount of interest in improving our > formatted kernel documentation, and, in particular, making it easier to > write; I'd like to be sure that work doesn't leave media behind. > > Work pushed by Daniel Vetter and company has been aiming toward the > ability to use a lightweight markup language in the in-source kerneldoc > comments. Initially Markdown was targeted; the most likely choice now > looks like ReStructuredText, though no decision has been made. I've been > pushing for moving all of our formatted documentation to whatever markup > we use, leaving DocBook behind. There are, I think, a lot of good > reasons to want to do that, including consistency between the template > files and the in-source comments, ease of authoring, and a less unwieldy > toolchain. I looked at ReStructuredText and it looks like it will be a pain to convert the media DocBook code to that, and the main reason is the poor table support. The syntax for that looks very painful and the media DocBook is full of tables. BTW, my daily build scripts also rebuilds the media spec and it is available here: https://hverkuil.home.xs4all.nl/spec/media.html Also missing in ReStructuredText seems to be support for formulas (see for example the Colorspaces section in the spec), although to be fair standard DocBook doesn't do a great job at that either. Now, I hate DocBook so going to something easier would certainly be nice, but I think it is going to be a difficult task. Someone would have to prove that going to another formatting tool will produce good results for our documentation. We can certainly give a few representative sections of our doc to someone to convert, and if that looks OK, then the full conversion can be done. We have (and still are) put a lot of effort into our documentation and we would like to keep the same level of quality. Regards, Hans > > Various proof-of-concept patches have gone around showing that this idea > seems to be feasible. The latest discussion is at: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.documentation/35773 > > The media community has a lot of investment in DocBook documentation. > Converting to another markup form is relatively easy, and it's something > I would be willing to help with when the time comes. But it occurred to > me that I should probably ask what you all think of this. > > There is no flag day here; there's no reason to rip out the current > DocBook-based build infrastructure as long as somebody's using it. But > it would be nice to get rid of it eventually and work toward the creation > of a more integrated set of kernel documentation. > > So...is this an idea that fills you with horror, or does it maybe have > some appeal? Do you have any questions? > > One other question I had for you was: which of the allegedly supported > output formats are important to you? > > Thanks, > > jon > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: V4L docs and docbook
Hi Jon, Em Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:52:54 -0700 Jonathan Corbetescreveu: > Hey, Mauro, > > There's been a conversation going on that I keep meaning to bring you > into. In short, there's a fair amount of interest in improving our > formatted kernel documentation, and, in particular, making it easier to > write; I'd like to be sure that work doesn't leave media behind. > > Work pushed by Daniel Vetter and company has been aiming toward the > ability to use a lightweight markup language in the in-source kerneldoc > comments. Initially Markdown was targeted; the most likely choice now > looks like ReStructuredText, though no decision has been made. I've been > pushing for moving all of our formatted documentation to whatever markup > we use, leaving DocBook behind. There are, I think, a lot of good > reasons to want to do that, including consistency between the template > files and the in-source comments, ease of authoring, and a less unwieldy > toolchain. > > Various proof-of-concept patches have gone around showing that this idea > seems to be feasible. The latest discussion is at: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.documentation/35773 > > The media community has a lot of investment in DocBook documentation. > Converting to another markup form is relatively easy, and it's something > I would be willing to help with when the time comes. But it occurred to > me that I should probably ask what you all think of this. > > There is no flag day here; there's no reason to rip out the current > DocBook-based build infrastructure as long as somebody's using it. But > it would be nice to get rid of it eventually and work toward the creation > of a more integrated set of kernel documentation. > > So...is this an idea that fills you with horror, or does it maybe have > some appeal? Do you have any questions? As you can see at: https://linuxtv.org/docs.php We have 2 types of documentation for the Kernel part of the subsystem, Both using DocBook: - The uAPI documentation: https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis - The kAPI documentation: https://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-internals/device-drivers/mediadev.html The kAPI uses kernel-doc. I believe it should be easy to convert and/or add markup tags there to improve it. Actually, this is one of the things we currently miss. So, anything to improve it will be very welcomed. The uAPI is a different story. What we have there is a join of two different documents: - The V4L2 documentation, written directly in DocBook - The DVB API documentation, written originally in LaTex and later migrated to DocBook. Such documentation uses extensive usage of the DocBook features, so, I think it won't be trivial to convert it. In addition, we have some scripts embedded at the DocBook/media Makefile that create cross-references between the public API headers and the DocBook, warning us if some new ioctl, define, enum, ... was created without the corresponding documentation. While not perfect, those scripts help a lot for us to be sure that no uAPI changes would reach upstream without the corresponding documentation. They work by parsing the uapi/*.h files we use and adding references to (almost) every data type there. As those headers are included at the documentation as appendices, DocBook generation with xmllint will check if all references exist and will produce an alert if something is missing. I even run xmllint manually to make it pedantic, using the script below: make cleanmediadocs make DOCBOOKS=media_api.xml htmldocs 2>&1 | grep -v "element.*: validity error : ID .* already defined" echo echo "Do some pedantic checks and generate DocBook/media/media_api.html without chunks" echo xmllint --noent --postvalid "$PWD/Documentation/DocBook/media_api.xml" >/tmp/x.xml 2>/dev/null xmllint --noent --postvalid --noout /tmp/x.xml xmlto html-nochunks -m ./Documentation/DocBook/stylesheet.xsl -o Documentation/DocBook/media Documentation/DocBook/media_api. I run the above script every time a patch touches on one of the public API headers, as part of my reviewing process. I believe that porting it to whatever other documentation system we decide would be painful and would require a lot of effort. Also, as we're touching the documentation on almost all Kernel versions, such porting effort should happen quickly, as otherwise it would either prevent us from adding new features at the subsystem, or we would need to keep 2 copies of the documentation, and the ones porting it would have to port later the new additions. So, I guess we'll likely need to postpone converting the uAPI document until we can find someone with time and knowledge to do it quicky. > One other question I had for you was: which of the allegedly supported > output formats are important to you? The most important format is html, on both on multiple docs, like the one hosted at