Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 27 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: Am 26.01.2011 17:44, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: On Wednesday 26 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: E.g. cmake --help-fullfilename.docbook gives you a docbook file, which can then be processed further. The interesting thing is how

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-27 Thread SF Markus Elfring
That's it currently. Is it possible that a field or attribute can specify a format identifier (in the near future)? Regards, Markus ___ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-27 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Thursday 27 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: That's it currently. Is it possible that a field or attribute can specify a format identifier (in the near future)? AFAIK nothing is planned. With sounds doable I meant that this looks like a nice task which can be done without knowing a

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-27 Thread Eric Noulard
2011/1/27 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net: On Thursday 27 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: That's it currently. Is it possible that a field or attribute can specify a format identifier (in the near future)? AFAIK nothing is planned. With sounds doable I meant that this

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
E.g. cmake --help-fullfilename.docbook gives you a docbook file, which can then be processed further. The interesting thing is how to get the links into these files initially. Do you need any intermediate format(s) for the desired data exchange? Regards, Markus

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-26 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 26 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: E.g. cmake --help-fullfilename.docbook gives you a docbook file, which can then be processed further. The interesting thing is how to get the links into these files initially. Do you need any intermediate format(s) for the desired data

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
Am 26.01.2011 17:44, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: On Wednesday 26 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: E.g. cmake --help-fullfilename.docbook gives you a docbook file, which can then be processed further. The interesting thing is how to get the links into these files initially. Do you need

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-25 Thread Michael Jackson
I use the following script to generate a QtAssistant based documentation set. This allows quick searching of the docs and a more organized CMake documentation package. Here is the bash script. Maybe some else will find it useful also. I'll be the first to admit that I am not the best/most

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-25 Thread SF Markus Elfring
Currently, for formatting the format as described in the readme.txt in the CMake modules directory is used (i.e. not that much formatting). Do higher level programming interfaces exist that can work with message/documentation templates in various file formats? Regards, Markus

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-25 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 25 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: Currently, for formatting the format as described in the readme.txt in the CMake modules directory is used (i.e. not that much formatting). Do higher level programming interfaces exist that can work with message/documentation templates in

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-24 Thread SF Markus Elfring
Much to my surprise, there was only a single CMAKE_MATCH on our whole documentation page. It would make sense to document the variables CMAKE_MATCH_0 and friends explicitly. And cross-referencing left, right, north and south would also be good. Does the current documentation format support

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-24 Thread David Cole
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:01 AM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Much to my surprise, there was only a single CMAKE_MATCH on our whole documentation page. It would make sense to document the variables CMAKE_MATCH_0 and friends explicitly. And cross-referencing left,

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-24 Thread SF Markus Elfring
No, it does not. Any cross-references are mentioned in text only form and depend on the end user finding the cross-reference topic. Would you like to change this situation? Regards, Markus ___ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-24 Thread David Cole
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: No, it does not. Any cross-references are mentioned in text only form and depend on the end user finding the cross-reference topic. Would you like to change this situation? Regards, Markus I

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-24 Thread SF Markus Elfring
We already have this bug filed to improve CTest and CPack documentation: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067 I guess that the selection of a proper documentation format is a general problem for all applications. Which are your format favourites for CMake components at the moment?

Re: [CMake] Improvements for cross-referencing in the documentation?

2011-01-24 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 24 January 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote: We already have this bug filed to improve CTest and CPack documentation: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=10067 I guess that the selection of a proper documentation format is a general problem for all applications. Which are your