Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...
On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 19:21 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: On 23.04.2013 18:12, Russel Winder wrote: […] Uurrr… isn't lxml a wrapper over libxml2 to provide the ElementTree API (and other things like a validating parser and XPath). Yes, that appears to be true for libxml2 (the C library, that python-lxml depends on)...but not python-libxml2 (the Python bindings), which is the lib I'm actually talking about. bootstrap.py picked up lxml on my system. I am assuming this is the Python 2 in use rather than the vastly superior Python 3.3 ;-) -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...
Hi Russel, thanks a lot for all your comments. I won't go into detail about each one of them, but would like to say a few words in general. There still may be some quirks with fonts or layouts and fop is certainly not state of the art for PDF rendering...whatever. To be honest, I don't care that much...if you do, I'll gladly accept your pull requests. I tried to improve the overall procedure for creating the documents, especially for a user that wants to contribute by writing a paragraph or two for the manual or the UserGuide. And I had some success with that, at least it was the best I could give and I, personally, am happy with the result. So there it is now, and can be used by the SCons project. If you guys are not convinced or have better ideas, that's good. Let's talk about them and if they can support all the current features we need and look even prettier, that would be the way to go then. I'm cool with that... What I don't want to happen is, that we do nothing just because the fonts don't look pretty enough yet, or some hyphenations are still wrong. I'd rather go into a possibly wrong direction first and then correct, instead of not moving at all and being stuck with SGML and troff. Best regards, Dirk On 28.04.2013 08:41, Russel Winder wrote: [...] I think human being should never have to read or write XML, not even DocBook/XML. XML-based toolchains are clearly now the norm in publishing for re-purposing, but should this lead to requiring authors to write DocBook/XML? Yes, in our case I think it should. Because it allows us to validate the documents, such that we can put the main work load on the user, not us. ;) [...] Seriously, I do worry that using XML is a sufficient barrier to entry that we will not be evolving the content of the documentation just the form. Well, troff is a barrier as well. Wouldn't it help to move away from that, as a first step? Dirk deserves a prize for taking this on and doing what he has. If we finally get a little bit of movement about this topic, that'll be enough of a prize to me. :) ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...
On Sun, 2013-04-28 at 11:35 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: […] What I don't want to happen is, that we do nothing just because the fonts don't look pretty enough yet, or some hyphenations are still wrong. I'd rather go into a possibly wrong direction first and then correct, instead of not moving at all and being stuck with SGML and troff. […] If we finally get a little bit of movement about this topic, that'll be enough of a prize to me. :) Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files required, the new system is an improvement and should be accepted. We can look at fonts, hyphenation, etc. as a consequence of getting some movement and momentum into evolving things. Switching to something other than XML-based is a medium- to long-term thing that I would like to see happen. Improving the XML-based systems now is something I would like to see happen. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.ukwrote: Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files required, the new system is an improvement and should be accepted. Glad you agree, I feel the same way. This way all the doc uses the same source language and in the same way, with a much more consistent (and verifiable) pipeline. I want to review some of the non-PDF generated stuff to make sure it's all there (as well as the old system did anyway), but Dirk, why don't you start prepping a pull request. Once it's in we can sweat the details (Russel's list is good to start). Bill, what do you think? -- Gary ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...
On 28.04.2013 20:20, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk mailto:rus...@winder.org.uk wrote: Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files required, the new system is an improvement and should be accepted. Glad you agree, I feel the same way. This way all the doc uses the same source language and in the same way, with a much more consistent (and verifiable) pipeline. I want to review some of the non-PDF generated stuff to make sure it's all there (as well as the old system did anyway), but Dirk, why don't you start prepping a pull request. Once it's in we can sweat the details (Russel's list is good to start). Bill, what do you think? I am ready to prepare a pull request any time...if we all agree that the current status of my experimental branch is good enough to go, I'll latch on. Would you rather like the pull request to be one single commit, or should I transplant all my single revisions for having a history that makes single changes/decisions more trackable? Dirk ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote: On 28.04.2013 20:20, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.ukwrote: Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files required, the new system is an improvement and should be accepted. Glad you agree, I feel the same way. This way all the doc uses the same source language and in the same way, with a much more consistent (and verifiable) pipeline. I want to review some of the non-PDF generated stuff to make sure it's all there (as well as the old system did anyway), but Dirk, why don't you start prepping a pull request. Once it's in we can sweat the details (Russel's list is good to start). Bill, what do you think? I am ready to prepare a pull request any time...if we all agree that the current status of my experimental branch is good enough to go, I'll latch on. The only thing I might suggest prior to a pull request would be to build the docs into the build dir. Would you rather like the pull request to be one single commit, or should I transplant all my single revisions for having a history that makes single changes/decisions more trackable? In a git world, I like to clean up commits into small but meaningful units. In mercurial it's not as easy, but if you can do it it's helpful for forensics. -- Gary ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
