RE: AWare

Ok, I agree.

Let's go for docbook. If we write our docs using it then others can copy. So I guess it is fine.

Do you have any decent stylesheets that we can use for the online versions?
Could you set up the project with docbook then and some targets for generating HTML and PDF?

/Jonas

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jérôme BERNARD [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:	Wed 4/28/2004 9:29 AM
To:	Jonas Boner
Cc:	aspectwerkz-devel-81qHHgoATdGxIXFVlbCvtR2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org
Subject:	RE: [aspectwerkz-devel] AWare
Quoting Jonas Boner <[email protected]>:

> I agree that docbook is generally a better format to write documentation in,
> but don't you think that it will be easier to get people to, first contribute
> and second write good docs, if we keep it as simple as possible. The tools
> should not stand in the way. Confluence seems to be working fine for Pico. 
> We could set up rights on how gets to modify what etc.

I do not know well the added features in Coherence compared to SnipSnap, but I
remember the discussion (still not closed BTW) on the webwork ML about how hard
it is to generate a downloadable doc. And do not even ask for a PDF one :-)

I like the fact that people may contribute (I used the word people for
users+developers), but sincerely, it requires to "administer" the wiki (make
sure someone do not delete or put crap) and still, people have to learn yet
another syntax (although simple) in order to contribute on the wiki.

So I think that if we "ban" docbook, then xdoc might be the better pick. At
least we could generate online/offline HTML doc + a PDF one if necessary.


Jérôme.