Re: [Firebird-docs] Which kind of docs?

[Thad H. <th...@mi...>]

Paul,

The vast majority of my work with Firebird (90+%) has been with embedded =
SQL=20
so that seems to be what I'm most qualified to write on.  I'm a bit unsur=
e of=20
some of the transaction handling but I might be able to blunder thru it. =
 And=20
I'm sure my boss and family will forgive my inattention. =20

What do you have as a formatting guide?  Is this all to be in MS Word, Op=
en=20
Office Writer, or some sort of XML tagging?  I would think the simpler th=
e=20
better till we're ready to go "final".

--Thad Humphries

On Saturday 19 July 2003 14:32, Paul Vinkenoog wrote:
> Hello again,
>=20
> Which kind of docs should we produce? Well, there doesn't have to be
> consensus on that: everybody who is willing to spend unpaid time
> writing docs, can - in principle at least - work on the document that
> he/she finds important. Of course it would be nice to know from each
> other what we are doing, especially when it comes to large documents
> -- or else we might wind up with six Embedded SQL Guides.
>=20
> Personally, I find it most important to produce a comprehensive core
> documentation set, more or less like the PDF books that Borland ships
> with InterBase. Such a set could (should?) contain:
>=20
> - a DDL guide
> - a DML guide
> - an SQL reference
> - an API guide
> - a Programmer's Guide
> - ...
> - ...
> ...