[TCLCORE] Re: RFC/PEP format

[Andreas K. <a.k...@we...>]

> Andreas Kupries <a.k...@we...>
> > Interesting. Thanks.
> 
> It's been fun.  Thanks for giving me an excuse!

No problem at all.
 
> I'm trying to generate a useful sidebar quick-index too; the JDK1.2
> documentation tree is actually quite usable except for a few minor
> niggles (like the way that most stuff simply doesn't fit in the
> frames!) so I try to generate HTML to be a bit like that.  Let me
> know what you think...

I haven't seen the JDK1.2 docs yet. Some url available I can go to ?

 
> > Enclosed the most uptodate versions of the *rules .tcl files and some
> > _drafts_ I am working on.
> 
> Do you have a document specifying the format of a TCT or is it simply
> what you happen to have implemented?  :^)

As of now it is what I 'happen to have implemented', with all the
incongruencies that come from such an approach (TCT- prefix, and not,
...). But when working on an adaption of
'http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0001.html' for our needs the
section 'PEP Style' brought it home that I should (start to) do
this. Any ideas for the normalization and/or optimization of the
commands ?

This documententation could be TCTD 3 (Number 2 should be the adapted
PEP 1). Ne TCTD, this is a shortcut of 'Tcl Core Team Document'. My
current name for this type of document. I had no desire to use RFC or
TEP (Tcl Enhancement Proposal). Other names ?

 
> > With respect to these drafts I would really like to get feedback
> > from the people which did the TclBlast CD (TclBurn Team) and the
> > Tclish installer. From everyone else too.
> 
> * I believe that the Tcl/Tk documentation is in HTML on Macs.

Ok, so this is one we could generate from the XML.

 
> * It'd be nice if there was a TMML browser written in Tcl/Tk.  Sure an
>   HTML browser would be nice too, but being able to host our own
>   documentation would be a definite plus.  :^)

Larry recommended to me that we should start out with TkMan and then
extend it to handle XML, HTML, ...

 
> * It might be nice too if there were several different SDK releases.
>   I have in mind a version which is just a user-level one (i.e. one
>   for people not doing heavy development, with only precompiled and
>   pure Tcl extensions) and a version which is a developer-level one
>   (with all the user-level stuff *plus* other tools which require the
>   use of a compiler to work properly - SWIG and maybe tcl2c would be
>   things to ship in this category.)  I suppose one is a collection of
>   resources, and the other a full SDK...

For now I am thinking about a source based SDK. Binary distributions
with all their 'niceties' like hardcoded paths (or env. vars.) et
al. come later.

See also the enclosed archive containing some thoughts about archives
and distributions I wrote up some months ago, ... oh around
may/june. And I was in a bad mood when I decided upon the title. We
could convert that into several TCTDs, like a glossary + discussion of
package descriptions and distributions in general. :)

-- 
So long,
	Andreas Kupries <a.k...@we...>
			<http://www.purl.org/NET/akupries/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------