Re: [AD] Re: [AL] allegro DTD

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 05:46 -0700, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> >
> > Ah, doesn't look much more readable after a quick glance. Anyway, this
> > was rather rhetorical.. I just felt DTD it is hard to read by humans
> > when trying to figure out how the XML should look (in the end I just
> > scanned for !ELEMENT tags and wrote them all down).
> >
> 
> This is one major reason my .tx->.xml thing isn't done. that and I had to 
> figure out the ._tx format from scratch :o
> 

Ah, nice. Didn't know you actually started working on this. I'll not
touch the python code in the makedoc module for now then. Oh, and using
XSLT for the output plugins, as you mentioned in #allegro, seems to be a
good idea.

I posted a list of ._tx commands I'd like to deprecate for the XML
conversion:

@$ @contents @document_title @external-css @html @!html @html_footer
@html_text_substitution @!indent @indent @index @man @!man @manh @mans
@multiplefiles @rtfh @tallbullets @texinfo @!texinfo @text @!text
@titlepage @!titlepage

Well, titlepage could be kept, as Sven already said, and would be mapped
to the corresponding XML element. But the others all just mix how the
output should look with the actual documentation. But I think, the XML
should only contain documentation information, i.e. what does the
library and its functions, and so on. How the information is presented
should be the purpose of the output plugins. (There could e.g. even be
multiple HTML outout plugins, presenting it differently.)

This has nothing to do with current ._tx of course. Just, once makedoc
will be dropped, which I think now looks more like mid-term than
long-term already, with also Tomasu working on it :)

-- 
Elias Pschernig