From: John B. <bel...@cs...> - 2001-04-20 22:04:09
|
Hi, I agree that the documents should be under CVS control. IMHO Having a pure text file format (like DocBook or latex or .txt ...) is much easier to work with. I don't have much experience with different formats, so I leave that decision to more knowledgeable folks. I've been on projects that had CVS set up to automatically generate and post the docs as revisions were checked in. This might be nice if we wanted to have both an official documentation set and an in-progress one web accessible. I'm not a professional doc writer, but if there was an official doc process set up I would at least be able to note my changes in a working copy so they don't get lost in the ether.... -John On Friday, April 20, 2001, at 02:26 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is wonderful that you are working on documentation. Thanks!!! > > I would like to suggest that you consider (as perhaps a long term goal) > putting the source documentation in DocBook(x) xml format and using > this to > generate html, printable html, pdf, etc. This procedure is being used > by > several open source projects: the one I am most familiar with is jboss > (www.jboss.org, actually now on sourceforge) and I think it produces > great > results. After some work I figured out how to use emacs with psgml to > author the stuff and, to me, it turns out to be at least as easy as > working > in a word processor. (this was somewhat to my surprise, I had previously > been rather frustrated with emacs.) > > I also think the documentation- at least anything "we" write should be > put > under cvs control at sourceforge. This includes the sourceforge > website. > > What do others think? > > Thanks again for your initiative and work! > > David Jencks > On 2001.04.20 04:46:29 -0400 Andy Canfield wrote: >> I am working on documentation. >> >> I am in these mailing lists: firebird-devel- >> re...@li... >> and int...@me.... Is there some other mailing list or >> news >> group that I should be a member of, such as >> Fir...@li... (no such thing) or >> int...@me... or the like? >> >> I have found that the primary documentation is the Borland InterBase 6 >> Beta Documentation set. Borland still points to this as the >> documentation >> for their latest InterBase release so apparently even Borland hasn't >> updated it. >> >> Mr. Borland, sir: I have heard that you cannot put the Beta >> Documentation >> Set into open source because it contains material which comes from >> non-Borland sources. Please consider identifying that restricted >> material >> and releasing the remainder somehow so that we can produce good current >> documenation applicable to both IB and FB. Perhaps I could be allowed >> to >> create Open Source documenation based on updating some of the other >> files >> in ftp://ftpc.inprise.com/pub/interbase/techpubs/? Thank you. >> >> I have found an incredible number of short articles and FAQ files on >> various web sites. >> >> What I look for as a first goal is a web page which references all >> documentation files, containing copies where possible or mere links >> where >> copyright problems arise. Such a documenation site would serve as a >> centralized Internet reference source but would not yet be searchable >> due >> to the variety of formats. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Firebird-devel mailing list >> Fir...@li... >> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Firebird-devel mailing list > Fir...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel > |