Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de> writes: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 09:22:59PM +0400, Roman Grazhdan wrote: >> >I've spent weeks to add the proper markup to the original fvwm man >> >pages before they were converted to xml. I won't accept any >> >documentation format that throws all this extra information away >> >for no reason. >> >> So Dominik, you would set requirements later so that I could check >> what I'm doing against them? > >> I like the current manual very much, it's really helpful and as >> close to easy to use as a documentation for something like fvwm >> can get, and I'd like it to stay this way. > > Me too. My only personal requirements are that (a) the final, > rendered man page should mostly look like it looks now (not losing > the markup I mentioned, although we have a bit too much at the > moment), and (b) that I'll be able document new features in the > future without much overhead. I've always been very happy with > the roff format we had before the switch to xml.
Very sorry you still don't like the XML format. I find it clumsy, but I'm willing to put up with it. Personally I almost always go online and read Fvwm man pages as HTML. Anything we can come up with that renders HTML is good with me. I want to mention, when I wrote F_CMD_ARGS, one of the things I had in mind was to put function documentation in the .c files. I envisioned some kind of extract run generating the actual man page input. I was trying to make the functions easy to find by giving them a uniform appearance. I thought that would help a lot keeping the source code and the documentation in sync. -- Dan Espen
