Re: [AD] grabber ._txification

[Stepan Roh <stepan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Peter Wang wrote:

> Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:
>
> > On 2004-10-24, Elias Pschernig <allefant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > I just looked again at the XML docs suggestion for Allegro 5 -
> > > and a ._tx to XML converter would be fairly easiy (i.e. just
> > > another makedoc output target). But, what was the idea behind
> > > this? Wouldn't we still need e.g. the maketexi.c?
> >
> > We would. Whatever the format, there are still input and output
> > processes.  The main reason for using XML as input format is to have
> > a richer than ._tx format which accepts easier addition of features
> > (example: have an embedded graphic in the documentation and an ascii
> > aproximation in text output).  In the end, whether it is XML or ._tx,
> > at some point is an undocumented hierarchical structure in memory.
>
> I think another point was that there are external tools available to process 
> XML, so e.g. we can convert our XML to DocBook or whatever and take a load 
> off our back.

That was exactly my idea. If I remember correctly, I first proposed usage 
of DocBook and was rejected by a roaring crowd :-) So I looked into 
DocBook and Simplified DocBook and "reused" or "rethought" some of their 
ideas. The XSLT for A5DOC -> DocBook was on my TODO list (it is no longer 
there, because A5 is gone), but is The Right Way(tm).

Have a nice day.

Stepan Roh