| Re: [AD] Re: [AL] allegro DTD |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Re: [AL] allegro DTD
- From: Matthew Leverton <meffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:08:57 -0600
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=CxrpiQQzsxI8+ZO9HIw/Y+rpIEMpXK9k1a6hW+q5FKAWnv/dOgpCrY3X/ercjKwrUx46c7iPmmJxmhchijfwKh73XC4nzfS9mPNSefdQjjYuNBUQspK4wuXZ8U7UlSaic2qYAU+5vdPbqqOYSz8+2762QsYRXKQCcBsnfaYoeA0=
> since there's the utility to convert it to XML, which everything else can with 0-cost
> parsing :)
>
So to build the documentation, the end user / programmer would have to
have perl to build the non ._tx formats?
>the xml generated (with the current dtd as a guide) gets to be over a MB, hand
>editing such a thing wouldn't be feasable.
>
I just looked at the compressed versions, and the ._tx was ~150KB and
the .xml was ~175KB, so I don't think size is an issue. Easier to use
tools is worth 25KB. ;)
There are XML editors available. Also, a web interface (wiki-ish) with
an XML export could be set up to attract more doc writers. So, the
._tx isn't vital for ease of editing.
Not that I care a lot about most of this stuff (except the dashes!),
I'm mostly just giving out some ideas...
--
Matthew Leverton