You can subscribe to this list here.
2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(12) |
Dec
(22) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2003 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(18) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(4) |
2004 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
2005 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(6) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(2) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Tammo S. <Tammo.Schnieder@ePost.de> - 2002-11-15 21:17:54
|
Hi, as I was ill the last days, I had a little time to translate the user guide (a virus infection was going around...). I have checked it in as CVS module name "openshore-doku". You will need to have installed OpenOffice 1.0.1 If somebody wants to have it in Word format or as rtf, i can send it directly to you. I have done the translation by describing the german user interface. So there will be some more work to do when the translation to other languages is complete. I would appreciate to get feedback... Best regards Tammo |
From: Denis <ku...@gr...> - 2002-11-12 12:46:47
|
Helge Schulz wrote: > I think OpenOffice is a good compromise between usability and XML > conformence. I hope open source projects like AbiWord and OpenOffice will > some time integrate FrameMaker like XML features. AbiWord supports already > a rudimentary DocBook export, but his indexing and contents table creation > features are still to weak. > > Helge > OK. Let's use OpenOffice and hope for a better XML support from the OpenOffice community. Denis |
From: Helge S. <he...@sd...> - 2002-11-11 22:34:38
|
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Denis Kuni=DF wrote: > > Hi, >=20 > I recommend to use the DocBook standard in XML. I like DocBook, too. But DocBook didn't solve all problems. It's very complex and without a editor with DTD checking "on the fly" it's like programming with long syntax bugfixing phases. That aren't good condition for spare time authors. > It's without WYSIWYG tools, Thats's not true. FrameMaker+SGML 6 and FrameMaker 7 supports WYSIWIG DocBook editing. You define a mapping between XML tags and layout styles. Every beginner can write a DTD conform (valid) XML document with these FrameMaker versions and a predefined mapping (Adobe ships FM with a DocBook mapping). > but it is a good base for converting the documentation to several=20 > outputs (pdf, html). That's true. > It should be easy to put it into SHORE (only a metamodel is needed). It's not so simple, as you think. DocBook is a pure structural DTD wihtout any semantic markup. You have thinks like chapter, sections, subsections, paragraph and so on. SHORE needs what we call semantic markup. Semantic markup give marked text a semantic meaning. It says, for example, the enclosed text define a use case, a requirement, a class, contains a instruction list or a instruction step. SHORE can identify relevant text blocks (SHORE objects) with such markup. You can't identify such objects in documents with pure structural markup without additional informations (like every subsection in chapter three defines a use case). > And as I know, FrameMaker in the last version can store documents in > DocBook format - a good starting point. We used a self defined DTD with a customized layout mapping. So we can't export our documents in DocBook. > Nevertheless a lot of OS projects use DocBook as their documentation > standard. For them it would be easy to migrate to OpenSHORE with sources > AND with their documentations. We would get an great user community. >=20 > I think, to use Word is not a good idea. It's not available on all > platforms and it's not open source. Not all develeopers would have access > to the documentation - a bad recommendation for an open source project! Right. Word is a knowledge trap door: Everythink you put in, is lost for easy automated interpretation and reuse. I think OpenOffice is a good compromise between usability and XML conformence. I hope open source projects like AbiWord and OpenOffice will some time integrate FrameMaker like XML features. AbiWord supports already a rudimentary DocBook export, but his indexing and contents table creation features are still to weak. =09Helge P.S.: Please delete german subject prefixes (AW for "Antwort" instead of RE for "reply") in answers for proper message threading in list archives. |
From: Denis <ku...@gr...> - 2002-11-11 10:27:29
|
Hi, I recommend to use the DocBook standard in XML. It's without WYSIWYG=20 tools, but it is a good base for converting the documentation to several=20 outputs (pdf, html). It should be easy to put it into SHORE (only a=20 metamodel is needed). And as I know, FrameMaker in the last version can=20 store documents in DocBook format - a good starting point. Nevertheless a lot of OS projects use DocBook as their documentation=20 standard. For them it would be easy to migrate to OpenSHORE with sources=20 AND with their documentations. We would get an great user community. I think, to use Word is not a good idea. It's not available on all=20 platforms and it's not open source. Not all develeopers would have=20 access to the documentation - a bad recommendation for an open source=20 project! Denis Klaus Mayr wrote: > Hi Tammo and friends >=20 > don't hate me for this: I would prefer simply > * to write it in Word on Windows=20 > * to use our Word-parsing-techniques to convert it into SHORE-XML and > * to use other tools to convert it into pdf >=20 > I also have also suggested (to Helge) that instead of translating > hundreds of pages, it could be better to supply a table of contents > in English, first, just to show what we have. >=20 > Our activities in translating the content itself can then be driven by= =20 > need.... >=20 > Klaus > =20 >=20 >=20 >>-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: ope...@li... >> > [mailto:openshore-devel- >=20 >>ad...@li...] Im Auftrag von Tammo Schnieder >>Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. November 2002 22:13 >>An: ope...@li... >>Betreff: [OpenSHORE-devel] OpenSHORE documentation - which tool? >> >>Hello all, >> >>I am looking at the old SHORE documentation and was wondering, which >> > would >=20 >>be a good format to convert the documentation to. >> >>Now it is written in Framemaker and everything is in german. >> >>My first look was, to find a tool like framemaker that is flexible in >>producing several output formats (pdf, html, xml). >> >>Also, I thought to write english and german documentation in one >> > document, >=20 >>where the parts are marked with the appropriate language. >>But i stopped that, as it will >>1. produce a huge document >>2. be confusing to handle >>3. makes it difficult to have a different chapter order >> >>So now I have started to translate the "Anwenderhandbuch" to a "User >> > Guide" >=20 >>using OpenOffice 1.0.1 . >> >>OpenOffice internally uses XML to store the documents, but it seems to >> > be >=20 >>difficult to get an XML that is useful as a base (and after >> > transformation) >=20 >>as input for OpenSHORE. >> >>Does someone has a recommendation for another tool that will help us >>documenting and (later) to produce XML that can be transfered to >> > OpenSHORE >=20 >>compliant XML? >> >>Best regards >> >>Tammo >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >>Welcome to geek heaven. >>http://thinkgeek.com/sf >>_______________________________________________ >>Openshore-devel mailing list >>Ope...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openshore-devel >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Openshore-devel mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openshore-devel >=20 >=20 --=20 Denis Kuni=DF GrammarCraft GmbH +49 30 99 26 23 75 www.grammarcraft.com www.grammarcraft.de |
From: Schnieder, T. <Tam...@sd...> - 2002-11-11 08:55:31
|
A message from SourceForge said, that SourceForge.net will be down on 2002-11-15 (Friday) 00:00 h GMT for 2-3 hours 2002-11-17 (Sunday) 18:00 h GMT for up to 12 hours Regards Tammo |
From: Klaus M. <kla...@4s...> - 2002-11-11 07:20:15
|
Hi Tammo and friends don't hate me for this: I would prefer simply * to write it in Word on Windows=20 * to use our Word-parsing-techniques to convert it into SHORE-XML and * to use other tools to convert it into pdf I also have also suggested (to Helge) that instead of translating hundreds of pages, it could be better to supply a table of contents in English, first, just to show what we have. Our activities in translating the content itself can then be driven by=20 need.... Klaus =20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ope...@li... [mailto:openshore-devel- > ad...@li...] Im Auftrag von Tammo Schnieder > Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. November 2002 22:13 > An: ope...@li... > Betreff: [OpenSHORE-devel] OpenSHORE documentation - which tool? >=20 > Hello all, >=20 > I am looking at the old SHORE documentation and was wondering, which would > be a good format to convert the documentation to. >=20 > Now it is written in Framemaker and everything is in german. >=20 > My first look was, to find a tool like framemaker that is flexible in > producing several output formats (pdf, html, xml). >=20 > Also, I thought to write english and german documentation in one document, > where the parts are marked with the appropriate language. > But i stopped that, as it will > 1. produce a huge document > 2. be confusing to handle > 3. makes it difficult to have a different chapter order >=20 > So now I have started to translate the "Anwenderhandbuch" to a "User Guide" > using OpenOffice 1.0.1 . >=20 > OpenOffice internally uses XML to store the documents, but it seems to be > difficult to get an XML that is useful as a base (and after transformation) > as input for OpenSHORE. >=20 > Does someone has a recommendation for another tool that will help us > documenting and (later) to produce XML that can be transfered to OpenSHORE > compliant XML? >=20 > Best regards >=20 > Tammo >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Openshore-devel mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openshore-devel |
From: Tammo S. <Tammo.Schnieder@ePost.de> - 2002-11-10 21:14:06
|
Hello all, I am looking at the old SHORE documentation and was wondering, which would be a good format to convert the documentation to. Now it is written in Framemaker and everything is in german. My first look was, to find a tool like framemaker that is flexible in producing several output formats (pdf, html, xml). Also, I thought to write english and german documentation in one document, where the parts are marked with the appropriate language. But i stopped that, as it will 1. produce a huge document 2. be confusing to handle 3. makes it difficult to have a different chapter order So now I have started to translate the "Anwenderhandbuch" to a "User Guide" using OpenOffice 1.0.1 . OpenOffice internally uses XML to store the documents, but it seems to be difficult to get an XML that is useful as a base (and after transformation) as input for OpenSHORE. Does someone has a recommendation for another tool that will help us documenting and (later) to produce XML that can be transfered to OpenSHORE compliant XML? Best regards Tammo |
From: Klaus M. <kla...@4s...> - 2002-10-31 08:21:19
|
Hello Helge nice to meet you Klaus |
From: Helge S. <he...@sd...> - 2002-10-29 15:59:14
|
This is a test. Helge -- Helge Schulz heschulz at users dot sourceforge dot net Munich, Germany |