Note that the following should not be taken as a plea for Fvwm to switch
to TexInfo, I merely wanted to address some of the points Thomas made.
Also note that I so far have no experience writing manpages nor TexInfo
documents, so the above is purely a "client side" view on things.
Thomas Adam wr
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:29:06PM +0400, Roman Grazhdan wrote:
> On 25.08.2014 22:47, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> Wow, this goes right to README! :)
>
> I wish I had it from the start, but it's nice to have it anyway.
It's fine. Just be aware that not all of markup will be the same with
mdoc---mos
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:10:11PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> On 25 August 2014 19:33, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > So, specifically, I ask everybody to really read and think about
> > the messages on the lists, to assume a constructive attitude, to
> > accept that people are different and one mi
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 09:27:17PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:19:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> > 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
> >
On 25 August 2014 19:33, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> So, specifically, I ask everybody to really read and think about
> the messages on the lists, to assume a constructive attitude, to
> accept that people are different and one might find it difficult
> to get along with somebody else, who is technicall
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:01:16PM -0500, Javier Fernandez wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 05:09:21PM -0600, Glenn Golden wrote:
> > troff. Ancient perhaps, but even today, nothing beats it, IMO. (The
> > TeX/latex
> > family seems to be the only serious competitor, and colleagues over the
> >
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 04:19:37PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> 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 wit
Dominik Vogt 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
>> >fo
On 25.08.2014 22:47, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Wow, this goes right to README! :)
I wish I had it from the start, but it's nice to have it anyway.
Thanks.
.\" Formating instructions for the fvwm man page:
.\"
.\" - Do not use \f... formatting instructions.
.\" - Avoid single and double quotes whe
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 05:09:21PM -0600, Glenn Golden wrote:
> troff. Ancient perhaps, but even today, nothing beats it, IMO. (The
> TeX/latex
> family seems to be the only serious competitor, and colleagues over the years
> familiar with with both seem to like them about equally.)
What do you
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,
Folks, I'm back from my (very) extended fvwm holiday for roughly a
month now, and I hardly know this place anymore. Can we *please*
keep the personal discussions off, and the technical discussions
on the list?
Really, developers can be difficult at times (myself being a good
example), but certain
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 again
Michael Treibton [2014-08-25 14:48:41 +0100]:
>
> i received an email from Glenn Golden who seems to know lots about
> mdoc - maybe he can help?
>
I'll be glad to if I can. mdoc(7) is probably a decent place to start,
if somewhat terse like most man pages. I did some fairly detailed rework
on a
On 25 August 2014 13:29, Thomas Adam wrote:
> Michael, it's been pointed out to me that my comment was a little
> harsh--and I had indeed intended to be, other than a firmer "I've
> nothing more I can say that I've not done already". Unlike the
> patronising hyperbole I received off-list, I won'
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> On 25 August 2014 09:43, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > This conversation is over.
>
> i am biterly concerned and disappointed by this decision - i do not
> understand how you can be closed minded and not take the usefulness of
> asciido
On 25 August 2014 09:43, Thomas Adam wrote:
> This conversation is over.
i am biterly concerned and disappointed by this decision - i do not
understand how you can be closed minded and not take the usefulness of
asciidoc.
i thought mvwm was going to be a nice project with a different
attitude to
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:02:19AM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> it doesn't throw it, it abstracts it.
And therein lies the problem, because as I look back over the initial
asciidoc work that I did, I note myself:
Asciidoc's man page driver enforces the three sections of NAME,
SYNOPSIS
On 24 August 2014 23:10, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> That example lacks almost all the markup in the text. It does not
> allow to automatically generate links in html format, or identify
> command names, command options, styles, strings, key sequences
> etc. by markup. An Asciidoc source file without
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 04:09:13PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> On 24 August 2014 10:00, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > But heed my previous email; when you get down to it, *roff (mdoc) *is*
> > the abstraction layer. That mdoc allows for all these things, and is
> > still letting you use the very ty
On 24 August 2014 10:00, Thomas Adam wrote:
> But heed my previous email; when you get down to it, *roff (mdoc) *is*
> the abstraction layer. That mdoc allows for all these things, and is
> still letting you use the very typesetting language man pages render
> with, etc., is a winner in my eyes.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:41:19AM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> If you don't watch this decision it will look like the same thing as
> docbook did - that it is here for no reason.
The requirements for what we want are still the same thing as what
Docbook brought us:
* The ability to render ma
Glenn Golden writes:
> Regarding your observation that asciidoc is capable of generating decent man
> pages and other documents, I would offer the analogy that programs like
> WordStar, FrameMaker, WordPerfect, DisplayWriter, ElectricPencil, Interleaf,
> [insert dozens more here]... were also cap
Michael Treibton [2014-08-24 00:41:19 +0100]:
> On 24 August 2014 00:09, Glenn Golden wrote:
> > I would offer the following encouragement to Michael: Every person (without
> > exception that I recall) who over the years I've badgered, browbeaten,
> > encouraged, or required to use *roff has been
On 24 August 2014 00:09, Glenn Golden wrote:
> I would offer the following encouragement to Michael: Every person (without
> exception that I recall) who over the years I've badgered, browbeaten,
> encouraged, or required to use *roff has been very happy that they took the
> plunge. You may laugh
Thomas Adam [2014-08-23 23:40:17 +0100]:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:36:38PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> > On 23 August 2014 17:30, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> taking a look at the mvwm repository, i not
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 09:36:38PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> On 23 August 2014 17:30, Thomas Adam wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> taking a look at the mvwm repository, i notice that the documentation
> >> is using xml. is this
On 23 August 2014 17:30, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> taking a look at the mvwm repository, i notice that the documentation
>> is using xml. is this still the case? it looks like some of the
>> documentation hasn't changed give
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> taking a look at the mvwm repository, i notice that the documentation
> is using xml. is this still the case? it looks like some of the
> documentation hasn't changed given some changes to the functionality
> in mvwm???
H
Hi,
taking a look at the mvwm repository, i notice that the documentation
is using xml. is this still the case? it looks like some of the
documentation hasn't changed given some changes to the functionality
in mvwm???
is this something i could be helping with?
Michael
30 matches
Mail list logo
