--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Beyond that, while I have DL'd these bug > > attachment(s), I haven't yet looked at them simply > > because my lack of expertise in this area means > that > > whenever I get into this I will have to refer to > XSLT > > references before I know what I'm looking at. :) > > At this point we're simply discussing whether the > XML is > acceptable to author, i.e. it's not too much of a > burden > compared to the HTML we're authoring right now. So > far > Peter said it was too verbose, Stefan said it was > OK, and > Jim argued for more alignment on XML technologies > (which > tend to make the XML even more verbose).
Hmm... looks okay to me in this regard. > > And also compare the existing HTML to the generated > one. Looks good here too. I very much like the since attribute: version number only, meaning we have an easy way to standardize the rendering of such tags including capitalization. ;) The bugreport says you started w/ Introspection to get here... I wonder if there is some way we can combine this doc initiative with Kev Jackson's suggestions on validation to set up some kind of element/attribute matrix evaluation to define compatibility between attributes/elements. Better yet, get this information into a single XML format used in documentation and referenced at runtime for validation and error reporting... Does that sound un-doable? -Matt > > By all means look at the XSL, but it's not > necessary. --DD > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
