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 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 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
26 matches
Mail list logo
