Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown

NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@. 

BACKGROUND:
We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:

http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/

ToDo:
- Lots.
- Style & templating work
- Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)

Done:
- most HTML content

Clay

"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet

On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
> Hi Clay,
>> 
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>> 
>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
> 
> Many thanks for working on this.
> 
>> 
>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>> 
>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
> 
> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> - <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>    I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>>    FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>> 
>>    We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>>    preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>>    incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>>    hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>> 
>>    We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>>    some other issues...
>> 
>>    Without further ado:
>> 
>>    http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>> 
>> 
>>    Kind regards,
>> 
>>    Clay Leeds
>>    --
>>    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> -
>>    <http://ourlil.com/>
>>    My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>    - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>> 
>> 
>>    On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>>    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>        On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]
>>        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>        > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>>        However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>>        converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>>        an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>>        be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>>        MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>>        merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>>        not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>>        It could be done as a separate step later.
>> 
>>        I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>>        scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>> 
>>        > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>>        conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>>        docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>>        as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>>        consequence? I don't know yet.
>>        >
>>        > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>>        ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>>        consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>>        other potential negatives in converting.
>>        >
>>        > G.
>> 
>>        One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>>        before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>>        MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>>        serves a different purpose.
>> 
>>        It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>>        But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>