On Wed, 8 May 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:28:37AM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: > > Agreed, but if most of the developers were to use an XML browser, the > > conversion could be done, say, once a week, by someone with the > > know-how, rather than having to have all of the individuals involved > > know how to do it. > > The rationale for standardizing on a specific XML toolset is > so that the conversions in the repository don't consistently > flip-flop. > > Right now, if everyone were to use their own transformation > tools and versions, the diffs in the repository would be > horrendous. > > I would back the rationale for updating the HTML at the same > time as the XML so that our website could be properly > updated when the docs change. -- justin
OK, this is a very good point, and I had not thought of that. I guess we can presume that everyone with commit access has the necessary skills, and access to tools, to do this. I just wish that we could put something in a cvs checkin script to do this for us. For example, on my cvs server, in $CSVROOT/commitinfo, I run a Perl syntax check on all .pm and .pl files that get committed - basically a perl -cw - and reject commits that don't pass. Using a similar mechanism, could we not run a XML->HTML conversion on every commit of a xml file, and then guarantee that the same tools are being used every time? Is there any reason *not* to do this? -- Rich Bowen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kenya.rcbowen.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
