On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Jakub Vrana wrote:
> > Okay, time to try this new thing out on php.net? :) I'm about to start a
> > new run of manual builds... I think I'm first going to test it with the
> > english version only though.
>
> What's the time plan for this? I mean when approximately will it be
> Okay, time to try this new thing out on php.net? :) I'm about to start a
> new run of manual builds... I think I'm first going to test it with the
> english version only though.
What's the time plan for this? I mean when approximately will it be
visible in online docs and when in downloadable?
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:14:47 +0300
Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:11:35 +0100 (CET)
> "Gabor Hojtsy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I've tested it with Russian version of man.
> > > it works ok, except 1 warning:
> > >
> > > PHP Warning: Unexpected charact
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:11:35 +0100 (CET)
"Gabor Hojtsy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've tested it with Russian version of man.
> > it works ok, except 1 warning:
> >
> > PHP Warning: Unexpected character in input: '\' (ASCII=92) state=1
> in /nfs/phpdoc/scripts/html_syntax.php on line 24
>
> I've tested it with Russian version of man.
> it works ok, except 1 warning:
>
> PHP Warning: Unexpected character in input: '\' (ASCII=92) state=1
in /nfs/phpdoc/scripts/html_syntax.php on line 24
This used to be a PHP bug in older PHP versions, that it does not like
to find \ at many places
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:39:41 +0100
Jakub Vrana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I've updated html_syntax.php to accept parameter whether generate
> output for HTML or PHP. I'm sending just diff of Makefile for now.
>
> I think that postprocess generated PHP or HTML files by PHP script is
> Okay, time to try this new thing out on php.net? :) I'm about to start a
> new run of manual builds... I think I'm first going to test it with the
> english version only though.
I vote for it! :-)
Jakub Vrana
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Jakub Vrana wrote:
> > Well, as far as I can see, this would fit into our system... It would be
> > nice if you could test, how much time it takes to highlight the
> > examples, but anyway, I think it should go into the makefile...
>
> For HTML version, it takes about 6.5 s
> Well, as far as I can see, this would fit into our system... It would be
> nice if you could test, how much time it takes to highlight the
> examples, but anyway, I think it should go into the makefile...
For HTML version, it takes about 6.5 s on my 1.7 GHz machine, 3593
files checked, 966 ch
I've updated html_syntax.php to accept parameter whether generate
output for HTML or PHP. I'm sending just diff of Makefile for now.
I think that postprocess generated PHP or HTML files by PHP script is
much easier and transparent than processing in DSSSL. Despite the fact
that I don't know anythin
You can find the DSSSL code to make this work in peardoc /
php-gtk-doc CVS. Please try to integrate that to our DSSSL sheets.
It would be a perfect christmas gift :))
It seems that peardoc uses similar solution as I proposed so it's
unusable for online version of PHP manual.
There are some traces o
> You can find the DSSSL code to make this work in peardoc /
> php-gtk-doc CVS. Please try to integrate that to our DSSSL sheets.
> It would be a perfect christmas gift :))
It seems that peardoc uses similar solution as I proposed so it's
unusable for online version of PHP manual.
Jakub Vrana
> the online version should have the examples highlighted on the fly
OK, you are right.
> It would be nice first to make the online version work this way, and
> then think about adding this to the offline version.
It's impossible to highlight on the fly in offline version. So it will
be maybe th
Hi!
I like syntax highlighting. Thus I wrote a script to syntax highlight
PHP examples in HTML version of manual. I don't know how strong is
DSSSL, but it was much easier for me to write a PHP script with
intention to run after processing DSSSL templates.
Does anything prevent syntax highlighting
14 matches
Mail list logo
