Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Clay Leeds <the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com>
2012-04-17 13:59:39 GMT
NOTE: Moving discussion to general <at> . Please make all further responses to general <at> .
BACKGROUND:
We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
ToDo:
- Lots.
- Style & templating work
- Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too
difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
Done:
- most HTML content
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_chris <at> hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
> Hi Clay,
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)...
It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just
Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>
> Many thanks for working on this.
>
>>
>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general <at> xmlgraphics.apache.org
<mailto:general <at> xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from
sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>
>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>
> Yes this discussion should move to general <at> as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com <mailto:the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com>> - <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro <the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com
<mailto:the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>> FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>>
>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>
>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>> some other issues...
>>
>> Without further ado:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com <mailto:the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com>> -
>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>> <the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com <mailto:the.webmaestro <at> gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn <at> skynav.com
>> <mailto:glenn <at> skynav.com>> wrote:
>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>
>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>
>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>> >
>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>> other potential negatives in converting.
>> >
>> > G.
>>
>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>> serves a different purpose.
>>
>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>> But I was hoping for some discussion
>>
>>
>>
>