Not that this solves your problem, but you can do a one-time, one-way
eggdoc-wiki transformation using the eggdoc-svnwiki egg.
(http://chicken.wiki.br/eggdoc-svnwiki, generated using itself :)
But there is no way to retain the semantic information during the conversion.
If some support were
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:43:28AM +, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote:
Can you provide a simplistic example of how an egg would be documented
in the wiki using these tags and what the actual html produced would
be?
Thanks!
Is it possible to have syntax along the lines of the following
Adhi Hargo wrote:
--- Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's best to keep the authoritative version of the manual in wiki
format instead of Texinfo. I think this makes it easier for most
to contribute to it. I also think a Texinfo version should be
generated from it.
Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote:
c) Therefore I'd always recomment to *store* some strictly checked
format, while serializing to the fashion-of-the-day, human readably
syntax in the very moment of delivery for edit/display.
I agree. The hard part there is the conversion from edit-mode to strict.
Hello, Alejandro,
I figured you would respond to this sooner or later :) Thanks for the
detailed section on generating Texinfo from wiki format. I did in fact
discover Graham's code, and I wrote some code to fill in the missing
functionality, however I haven't tested it yet, because I
--- Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's best to keep the authoritative version of the
manual in wiki
format instead of Texinfo. I think this makes it
easier for most to
contribute to it. I also think a Texinfo version
should be generated
from it.
I've just finished an
wiki tags tend to be applied in a very non-uniform (and in minor
cases, sloppy) manner while Texinfo forces writer to apply the right
tag.
Can you provide some examples of this?
in the long run, wiki-texi conversion loses a lot more semantic
information than the other way around, so much so
I did in fact discover Graham's code, and I wrote some code to fill
in the missing functionality [...].
Excellent! :-)
How would you suggest that I go about creating a test harness for
wiki-texi without having to create my own svnwiki site?
The following is an example of a simplistic
I wish I had seen the thread about the Chicken manual before. Anyway,
here are my thoughts. I'll use a bit of wiki format for this message,
heh. I'll try to keep it short.
== Improving the contents of the manual:
I agree with the people that think the manual should be improved to
make it more
Hello, Graham,
I saw the wiki-texinfo code in the stream-wiki repository, and I
have written some initial code to attempt to generate Texinfo using
the approach that svnwiki takes to generate LaTeX code. Thanks for
contributing the texi converter.
-Ivan
Graham Fawcett [EMAIL
On 5/19/07, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Mario,
Do you care to elaborate why there is no easy way to do that? I
will be very happy to contribute time and effort to building a
wiki-texinfo converter.
Ivan, I did some work on a wiki-texinfo converter (continuing
Alejandro's
Hi Mario,
Do you care to elaborate why there is no easy way to do that? I
will be very happy to contribute time and effort to building a
wiki-texinfo converter. The PDF does help a little bit, but even the
best PDF reader does not even come close to the abilities of the Emacs
Texinfo reader.
Hi Ivan,
On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:11:46 +0900 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you care to elaborate why there is no easy way to do that?
Because, as far as I know, we don't have a wiki-texinfo
converter.
I've quickly searched and found an HTML-texi converter:
Hi all,
Sorry if I don't get the gist of this conversation
(I'm new, here, anyway), but isn't converting
Chicken's manual to Texinfo format a bit waste of
time? Because the way I see it, chicken.pdf isn't
really counts as a *reference* manual: you know, the
kind of document one would print and
Hi Adhi,
On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Adhi Hargo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry if I don't get the gist of this conversation
(I'm new, here, anyway), but isn't converting
Chicken's manual to Texinfo format a bit waste of
time? Because the way I see it, chicken.pdf isn't
really
Hi Adhi,
I don't really want to convert the manual to Texinfo format. The
current wiki arrangement is fine with me -- but I want to be able to
automatically generate Texinfo files from the wiki. That way, the same
content will be available in more formats -- and I think this is
consistent
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me what it would take to restore ability for
building Chicken's manual in Texinfo format? The current html parody
of a manual is impossible to use.
-Ivan
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
Hi Ivan,
On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:47:32 +0900 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone tell me what it would take to restore ability for
building Chicken's manual in Texinfo format?
I'm afraid there's not an easy way to do that.
The current html parody of a manual is impossible to
On 5/18/07, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current html parody of a manual is impossible to use.
You're exaggerating. Please be specific about what's impacting your
workflow. Please also be objective about how much time you're losing,
rather than dwelling on matters of taste.
19 matches
Mail list logo
