From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:37:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:36:57 -0400 Received: from arleno1.dsl.sirius.com ([207.44.242.45]:31245 "EHLO altair.dhs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:36:46 -0400 Message-Id: <200107181636.JAA24824@altair.dhs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Charles Samuels Organization: K Desktop Environment To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: LDP / KDP? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:36:48 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2.2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Well, upon reading the output produced from a make htmldoc in the kernel source, I've been rather (read: very) discouraged. I'm not sure there'd be much of a "market" for this, seeing as how much more complete the inline-kerneldocs will be. _still_, I like my format more, it seems like it'd be much easier to search, and I think the format is much more ideal than docbook (which I have worked with) e.g., an example data file: http://derkarl.org/kerneldoc/data/init_timer.kd And of course, I'm making no effort in preventing others from "syndicating" these data files. With which it should be simple enough to generate a printed form, and other formats from. In other words: it's a really easy parse. But the main problem is, it will be easier for the actual writers of the code to maintain their docs inline, which will severely slow the acceptance of this. So, it's a choice between inline docs and this. If there's any approval of this ("officially"?), then I'de be open to discuss moving this to something LDP-sanctioned, but of course, I wouldn't want to remove the versatility that I have so far. However, the main reason I didn't use docbook at first was _because_ I wanted the versatility, and I didn't want something that behaved like a book. e.g. http://developer.kde.org/documentation/library/2.0-api/classref/kdecore/ This documentation _is_ inline to the code (in the headers), generated via a perl script "kdoc". On Wednesday 18 July 2001 08:50 am, you wrote: > Charles Samuels (charles@kde.org) wrote: > (I'm only quoting your whole message because I'm > cc'ing it to discuss@linuxdoc.org.) > > Have you considered writing this as an LDP Guide? > > Advantages: > * Harness the incredible power of a virtual army of > LDP volunteers. (Well, a virtual platoon...) > * The docs become print-ready as well. > * DocBook is a standard! Yay standards! > * Use the already-present distribution network the LDP > has in place. > > Disadvantages: > * Your formatting looks spiffier than the LDP > stylesheets. > * You'd have to rewrite what you have. > * DocBook is not tailored to your purposes. > * Multiple versions will exist throughout the world. > > I believe it's an alternative worth considering. I'd > be willing to convert what you already have to > DocBook. -------------------------------------------------------