Christoph Hormann wrote:
[snip]
 > This is only meant as a basis for further discussion, it would be
 > interesting to know:
 >
 > - whether patch authors think this is feasible and useful

Yes, I guess that basic HTML should be portable enough and cover 99.9 %
of POV-Ray patch users.

 > - if other methods would be better
IMO there is no other methods, which were so portable as HTML (plain 
text perhaps, but it does not allow formatting/colouring/easy displaying 
of images and even text files are different for *X/Mac/Windows)

 > - if such a system is created how
 > it should be established (maybe something like official patch
 > documentation guidelines?)

I guess You meant "official unoffical patch's doc..." (or should it be 
"unofficial patch's offical doc..." :-)

 > Opinions?

Writing documentation is hardest part of patch creation  :-), so if 
there are guidelines/templates, then it would be great help.
Easiest would be to put each patch documentation to separate directory 
and require, that patch-specific index file is in parent directory. This 
way updating various patches documentation would be easy (just replace 
directory and index file). Main documentation would be created by having 
links to separate patches index files (not very user-friendly) or by 
copying patch-specific index files contents to one document (requires 
more work, but has better usability). In latter case it should be agreed 
general layout of index file, so that every part has similar appearance 
(e.g. patch name with header 3, subchapters with header 4, etc).

Post a reply to this message