Marco van de Voort wrote:
I don't understand this, since if I follow these steps, the stored nodes
still may contain the wiki syntax, and thus need backend changes?
Or am I wrong and are you suggesting encoding the xml/html to wiki as much as
possible before editing, and decoding it to xml/htm
Hans-Peter Diettrich schrieb:
Jeppe Johansen schrieb:
I would be interested in knowing whether it would be feasible to
create DSP backends for FPC. I recently had the experience of using a
TMS320C26 which probably has to be programmed in assembler due to the
limits of the instruction set. But
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> everybody uses Lazarus which has the FPDoc Editor built-in (though
> that editor also doesn't support rich text editing. I still have to
> type the extremely verbose syntax (as my simple example showed).
I don't think 10% tag overhead in an alread
Jeppe Johansen schrieb:
I would be interested in knowing whether it would be feasible to create
DSP backends for FPC. I recently had the experience of using a TMS320C26
which probably has to be programmed in assembler due to the limits of
the instruction set. But I hear newer DSPs use instruct
Martin schrieb:
You can have an editor that displays and edits the content in any format
you like and validates it at the same time. But it saves it in the
current format after all.
so you edit:"[b]key[/b] < 1"
and the editor saves: "key < 1"
should read
and the editor saves: "key <
Michael Schnell schrieb:
In fact I did a (quite low priority) research on how to port FPC to a
new CPU such as NIOS and Blackfin and found that it of course is doable
somehow. While NIOS seems to look more doable, as it's quite similar to
MIPS (and ARM), Blackfin has a much more complex instru
In our previous episode, Sergei Gorelkin said:
> > Not using XML would require a major rewrite of fpdoc - it is deeply rooted
> > in XML, as you'll find out - and I am not very keen on this. So hold your
> > horses there, please...
> >
> I'd suggest the following:
>
> 1) XML stays :-)
> 2) The f
On 9 July 2010 22:38, Martin wrote:
> You can have an editor that displays and edits the content in any format you
> like and validates it at the same time. But it saves it in the current
> format after all.
The point is we don't have any fpdoc content editor that supports the
tags currently list
