Re: [PATCH] DocBook XML toolchain modernization

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Apr 30 16:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:09:52PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >- Do you want me to do the proposed doctool to Doxygen conversion, so we 
> >can get rid of doctool?
> 
> This was something that Corinna wanted so I can't comment but since she
> asked you to be the maintainer, I'd say that whatever you want is
> acceptable as long as we still have a readable FAQ.

...and as long as we still have a writable FAQ ;)

What we have now looks good to me.  It builds fine on Linux outside
the source tree and the files, albeit calld *.xml now, still have this
cosy sgml feeling to them :)


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: [PATCH] DocBook XML toolchain modernization

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Apr 30 20:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:53:58PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >On 4/30/2013 14:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:09:52PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >>>   Embedding  within  is eeevil.
> >>
> >> faq.html is a pretty simple file and it seems to work.  Are there any
> >> non-religious advantages to doing this?
> >
> >Conceivably browsers could stop tolerating it.
> 
> Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say.  I don't think it's worth the
> effort and expense of duplicating Cygwin's CSS elsewhere but maybe
> there's a clever way to avoid the html nesting which wouldn't require
> that.
> 
> >>> - Any comments about the other items in my FUTURE WORK section?
> >>> Unconditional green light, or do you want to approve them one by one?
> >>
> >> You have the right to change anything in the doc directory.  Anything
> >> outside of that will require approval.
> >
> >The final removal of doctool requires replacing the DOCTOOL/SGML 
> >comments in winsup/cygwin/{path,pinfo}.cc with Doxygen comments, and 
> >folding most of the contents of winsup/cygwin/*.sgml into Doxygen 
> >comments within the relevant source files.
> 
> I'd rather just move this out of the code entirely.  The user visible
> interfaces aren't going to change and we haven't made a habit of
> adding new DOCTOOL tags.  I don't know who first thought that adding
> these was a good idea (it may predate my time on the project even
> though CVS insists that I added it with version 1.1) but, if Corinna
> agrees when she gets back, I'd like to just get rid of these.

I have not the faintest problem here, so I guess this means, just nuke
'em.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat