I'd agree - OOo on my box is total crap for docbook - like worse than
Word for HTML.
Larry
On 10/3/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think Brandon was suggesting we continue to use OOo with DocBook. I
can attest to the poor quality of the DocBook output from OOo
But it
I don't think Brandon was suggesting we continue to use OOo with DocBook. I can attest to the poor quality of the DocBook output from OOoBut it's a good way to start. We can export to DocBook, then clean it up (a lot). From that point on, we use XXE or a text editor...
Cheers,ClintonOn 10/3/
On 10/2/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DocBook -- currently the choice of iBATIS.NET documentation. It excels at
"diffability" and multi-format including great PDF and HTML output. But it
fails at ease of use / familiarity and therefore participation and quick
changes/deployment a
Congrats!
On 10/3/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
woo hoo! congrats!
Sounds like a good plan.
Jeff Butler
On 10/3/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather just do a 2.2.1 deploy, beta, vote for GA.
>
> It should only take a week or two to get 2.2.1 through. We ju
woo hoo! congrats!
Sounds like a good plan.
Jeff Butler
On 10/3/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd rather just do a 2.2.1 deploy, beta, vote for GA. It should only take a week or two to get 2.2.1
through. We just waited longer than normal for 2.2.0 for no good reason.Well, I h
congrats!On 10/3/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd rather just do a 2.2.1 deploy, beta, vote for GA. It should only take a week or two to get 2.2.1 through. We just waited longer than normal for 2.2.0 for no good reason.Well, I had a good reason, I'm now a father of two! :-)
Cheer
Open Office handles the reading and writing of docbook xml files as well. We could likely take the existing iBATIS docs and save them to docbook via Open Office, fix any oddities, and go. I'm for docbook because of it's tool support and cross platform ease of use.
BrandonOn 10/3/06, Larry Meadors <
Heh, well, I am for it.
I think either way (APT or docbook) we can switch later, so to me it's
not a decision that we need to really sweat over (on this project).
I think with a little effort, we can create a modular main document
that includes the child documents. I could take a crack at it lat
Congrats Clinton!!!
Elliot Gage
Clinton Begin wrote:
I'd rather just do a 2.2.1 deploy, beta, vote for GA.
It should only take a week or two to get 2.2.1 through. We just
waited longer than normal for 2.2.0 for no good reason.
Well, I had a good reason, I'm now a father of two! :-)
Cheer
I'm giving DocBook my +1.
I luvya Clinton. Any way ya wanna do it man is OK with me.
Seriously I think this is the way to go (and I really did go and print
the devguide PDF and read it on a train ;=)
I did a brief evaluation of DocBook about a year ago - just enough so
I could argue it's strengt
I'd rather just do a 2.2.1 deploy, beta, vote for GA. It should only take a week or two to get 2.2.1 through. We just waited longer than normal for 2.2.0 for no good reason.Well, I had a good reason, I'm now a father of two! :-)
Cheers,ClintonOn 10/3/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As
As far as I know, the only issue with 2.2.0 relates to the JDBC/ODBC bridge driver. Is this enough to cause us to make a 2.2.1 release, or should we have a vote on making 2.2.0 GA with the caveat that there is a problem with the bridge driver?
Personally, I'd be OK with calling for a 2.2.0 GA v
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IBATISNET-178?page=all ]
Gilles Bayon closed IBATISNET-178.
--
Fix Version/s: DataMapper 1.6
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Gilles Bayon
In SVN
> ConfigWatcherHandler does not wok with the changes of Da
I'm sold, at least enough to give it a shot. I'm giving DocBook my +1.What does everyone else think?ClintonOn 10/3/06, Jeff Butler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me the main advantage is that the source is plain XML so it's diffable.
Another advantage is that the source can be transformed into
For me the main advantage is that the source is plain XML so it's diffable.
Another advantage is that the source can be transformed into a large variety of formats (PDF, HTML, Word, Eclipse Help, etc.)
Most publishers accept DOCBOOK markup as input. So if anyone every wanted to publish the dev
I'm going to look at DocBook again. I'll download the XMLMind editor and the .NET guide (but I've heard that some people just use an IDE...no XMLMind necessary). But just to refresh my memorywhat are the advantages of DocBook over OOo?
Cheers,ClintonOn 10/3/06, Jeff Butler <[EMAIL PROTECT
I've just read the install docs for APTit's not as bad as DocBook Wiki, but it does rely on LaTex and a couple of other de facto *nix treats. Yeesh. I may be starting to lean towards Confluence or DocBook.
Depends where the important values are. Do people care about a single downloadable,
I'm for DOCBOOK. It much more functional than APT at the cost of some complexity, it's in wide use (something of a standard), it's not really that hard to use, and there are tutorials all over the place. I believe Larry found that we could get free licenses to a good WYSIWYG tool if someone needs
APT looks great. The "IBatis for Python" crowd will love it ;=)
Others alternatives I'm forgetting?
The docbook-wiki combination I mentioned in an earlier rant (
http://doc-book.sourceforge.net/homepage/ ).It basically offers
similar advantages as APT and Confluence. It is editable direc
19 matches
Mail list logo
