| Re: [eledmac] Split the handbook in two files |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eledmac Archives
]
Le 16 mai 2015 à 10:20, Michael Stenskjær Christensen <michael.stenskjaer@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Dear Philipp, dear Maïeul
>
> Is that entirely true? Maybe I'm just daft, but I can only find one documentation file for biblatex, containing (1) a user guide and then (2) a more advanced author guide for package authors and advanced users.
That is true. But the "more advanced user guide" does not contains comment on internal code of biblatex. It only provides advanced tools. The code of biblatex itself is not commented in this file.
> I think that setup is better and would also prefer it in the case of (r)eledmac. If I have a problem, I would far prefer just to look in one single documentation file rather than two separate, looking for a solution.
The aim of eledmac, compare to ledmac, was to prevent people overriding the code of ledmac. reledmac will be the completion of this work. If people has to look in the code of eledmac to make there own code, that means eledmac user interface is not complete.
>
> I must admit that I don't see any compelling reasons for splitting up the documents, but two advantages of keeping them together as two clearly separated parts of one single file:
> - Simplicity for the user/author searching for a solution. He only has to look in one file.
As said, I think user should not have to look in the eledmac code to solve problem. Except if (s)he wants to become a new maintener, which I will appreciate.
> - Access to the source, also for the new and unexperienced user. I think it is important not to "shield" (1) the user from the workings of the software, as well as (2) the software from the curious user who would like to learn something new. The ideas of literate programming actually means that you can learn from reading the annotated source. That is a very powerful thing, I don't think you should hide from the user.
>
> Well, that was my 2 cents, but as it has already been said, Maïeul, you are the maintainer and I think you should weigh advantages and disadvantages and do whatever you think is best.
Advantage of the actual system only one file. Easier to maintain, compile, read.
Disadvantage: could be create confusion between was are provided to the user and what is "internal cooking" of eledmac. I don't want to have many "\renecommand" hack, as it was in ledmac, which has block evolution.
>
> By the way, on the question of the name. Why not just come up with an entirely new name? I think it is getting a bit odd that what was originally edmac has evolved so much that three prefix-letters a now necessary to distinguish. Why no just take the leap and change the name completely?
>
I think it's important to maintain the idea of continuity. The main feature are not changing. That is the first point. The second one is that I have no idea for a new name ;)