[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gnome
Subject: Re: Documentation
From: John R Sheets <dusk () smsi-roman ! com>
Date: 1998-10-16 14:38:00
[Download RAW message or body]
Thanks, Miguel. I noticed Federico's article, gnome-doc-framework.txt in there
too. Federico's vision matches pretty closely with what I was thinking, regarding
a GNOME Book-Set, package Books (e.g. gnome-libs, ORBit, etc.), and a Chapter for
each .c file (more or less). Should the functions be divided up into Sections
inside the Chapter?
Granted, I just started studying DocBook. I'd be happy to start hacking on the
templates, though, for starters. I imagine they'll be pretty neanderthal until I
get better footing in DocBook. Eh, shouldn't take too long, if I make the effort.
Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> ------------------ api-commenting-style.txt --------------------
>
> I suggest we use the following to documenting API entry points in the
> GNOME libraries. I have written a simple Perl script that can extract
> these comments into a file. I will need to make my Perl script
> generate DocBook output.
Looks good. (I'd be interested in seeing that Perl script, BTW.)
What's the plan, then? Should I start submitting document patches for each file
in e.g. gnome-libs? Is the Master Plan that the Perl script would automatically
generate the (entire?) documentation structure in Federico's proposal? Or would
Federico's doc framework be a separately-maintained, hand-written manual. Or both
in parallel/combination? We should probably standardize on our approach so
developers will know whether to put their docs in comment blocks, or directly into
DocBook format.
John
--
To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic