--On December 16, 2013 8:40:31 PM -0800 John Ralls
wrote:
You misunderstand: XMLEditor refuses to edit the included files from
the master document. That's OK, they say that you have to load the
module files separately, and provide a context menu item to do so if
you load the master doc as a "d
On Dec 16, 2013, at 7:47 PM, David Carlson wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 6:32 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>>> All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents:
>>> It requires that you open each file separately for editing. It wi
On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>>
>> All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents: It
>> requires that you open each file separately for editing. It will display the
>> whole document just fine,
On 12/16/2013 6:32 PM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>> All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents: It
>> requires that you open each file separately for editing. It will display the
>> whole document just fine, but it won’t
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:49 PM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> All of which is utterly moot, because it doesn’t work with our documents: It
> requires that you open each file separately for editing. It will display the
> whole document just fine, but it won’t let you edit anything that’s in a
> separate f
On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:05 AM, John Ralls wrote:
>>
>> True, but it's non-obvious. The links to XMLEditor Personal Edition are on
>> the download pages, linked at the bottom of this page.
>
> That page also says "XMLmind used to offer a Pe
On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:05 AM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> True, but it's non-obvious. The links to XMLEditor Personal Edition are on
> the download pages, linked at the bottom of this page.
That page also says "XMLmind used to offer a Personal Edition with version
5.3.0 and earlier, but as of Septem
On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Mike Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:58:21 -0500
> Mike Alexander wrote:
>
>> On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
>>> editors are
>>> proprietary and pric
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:58:21 -0500
Mike Alexander wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> >
> > Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
> > editors are
> > proprietary and pricey. But there is also serna-free [1], which claims to
> > be
On Dec 15, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Mike Alexander wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
>>
>> Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
>> editors are
>> proprietary and pricey. But there is also serna-free [1], which claims to be
>> a near w
Partially answering my own question:
Am 15.12.2013 20:43, schrieb Frank H. Ellenberger:
> Does or could this also work on other OSes than Linux with Yelp?
we have in packaging/win32/install-impl.sh: make_chm ...
So we have also compiled Windows Help files.
___
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:03 AM, John Ralls wrote:
>
> I'll take a look at serna-free after I finish the release, which
> unfortunately didn't get tagged last night because of problems with
> code.gnucash.org.
Which I’ve now done.
Serna Free is free-as-in-beer. It was a free limited-feature ver
On Dec 15, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
>
> Or if we want to stick with docbook, I searched for docbook wysiwyg. Most
> editors are
> proprietary and pricey. But there is also serna-free [1], which claims to be
> a near wysiwyg
> editor that can handle docbook 4 (according to a nab
Hi,
I am still researching a few aspects.
Am 13.12.2013 08:26, schrieb Christian Stimming:
> I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take on
> the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
>
> I think the priority of the documentation file format should be:
>
On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:13 AM, Geert Janssens wrote:
> On Saturday 14 December 2013 23:05:14 Christian Stimming wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls:
> > > Well, the friendliest format for documenters is Microsoft Word,
> > > since pretty much any word processor wi
On Saturday 14 December 2013 23:05:14 Christian Stimming wrote:
> Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls:
> > Well, the friendliest format for documenters is Microsoft Word,
> > since pretty much any word processor will read it. We’ll get a lot
> > of noise from the Open Source
Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2013, 13:58:43 schrieb John Ralls:
> Since no-one has mentioned it yet, what about asciidoc? It's much
> simpler that the xml we have now, is very easy to learn, it is plain
> text, it handles multi-part books, and AFAIK the current docbook can be
> con
On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013, 15:47:18 schrieb Mike Evans:
> Given these priorities, I think both our current documentation file
> format and also a potential wiki workflow might not be the best
> solution. Instead of the curr
Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013, 15:47:18 schrieb Mike Evans:
> > >> Given these priorities, I think both our current documentation file
> > >> format and also a potential wiki workflow might not be the best
> > >> solution. Instead of the current file format (docbook xml, split into
> > >> several f
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:03:26 -0800
John Ralls wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Mike Evans wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:26:42 +0100
> > Christian Stimming wrote:
> >
> >> I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take
> >> on the ever-long question of our
On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Mike Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:26:42 +0100
> Christian Stimming wrote:
>
>> I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take
>> on the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
>>
>> I think the priority of the documen
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:26:42 +0100
Christian Stimming wrote:
> I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take
> on the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
>
> I think the priority of the documentation file format should be:
> - to generate HTML and PDF o
I know I'm jumping in rather late in this thread, but here's my take
on the ever-long question of our documentation file formats:
I think the priority of the documentation file format should be:
- to generate HTML and PDF output from it
- and to make it easy for documentation writers to edit th
23 matches
Mail list logo
