ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <ste...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ant documentation
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:54:15 GMT
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005, Kev Jackson <kevin.jackson@it.fts-vn.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thoughts/comments more than welcome
> 
> 
> Being a LaTeX guy myself, I've grown some bad feelings towards docbook
> when I had to use it on one project.  It's so powerless in
> comparision, but maybe that's only due to the default stylesheets and
> could be improved by better styles (something I have no desire to work
> on).

I tried to use docbook and ended up hating it too. Not enough macros 
see, you may be describing structure <emphasis></emphasis> rather than 
style <i></i>, but what I want is <todo> and <taskname>, independent
of 
the structure to use.

Also, as it doesnt cross-ref across docs, it is not as good as bibtex. I 
have stopped using it for now; it is not for humans to edit.

> 
> Anyway, docbook is not worse than HTML, only that people will have to
> learn it in order to contribute to the docs.  I'm not 100% sure that
> I'd want to go that route.

acutally it is worse in that the time from entry to view is longer; at 
least with (X)HTML you can hit reload and view the result immediately

Also: too verbose, paragraph logic too complex, not enough people know it.
> 
> Having the xdocs stuff output the docs as docbook instead of HTML
> would be fine.  But maybe it would be easier to create PDFs using FOP
> from the output the xdocs proposal currently creates.

dunno about the existing output. But we could go straight to Latex if we 
wanted :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message