 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was wondering what the plans were for porting the documentation over to the
wiki. Can this be done programatically?
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:11:48 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> I was wondering what the plans were for porting the documentation over
> to the wiki. Can this be done programatically?
I'd talked with Chris about this early on in the wiki project, and he
very graciously sent me a bunch of files and some code used for some of
the conversions; life got really busy for me, though, and I haven't had a
chance to look at it much.
The doc itself is in a type of markup that *should* be translatable to
Wiki format - the challenge is making the translation bidirectional (so
the updated doc in the wiki can be re-exported and converted to the other
formats again).
I was hoping things would slow down for me in March, as they usually do,
but this year has been quite unpredictable for me. In years past, I'd
get to the weekend and have energy to do other projects, but this year so
far, I've just been exhausted at the end of each week.
What I need to do is take a vacation and work on it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:11:48 -0400, SharkD wrote:
>
> > I was wondering what the plans were for porting the documentation over
> > to the wiki. Can this be done programatically?
>
> I'd talked with Chris about this early on in the wiki project, and he
> very graciously sent me a bunch of files and some code used for some of
> the conversions; life got really busy for me, though, and I haven't had a
> chance to look at it much.
>
> The doc itself is in a type of markup that *should* be translatable to
> Wiki format - the challenge is making the translation bidirectional (so
> the updated doc in the wiki can be re-exported and converted to the other
> formats again).
>
> I was hoping things would slow down for me in March, as they usually do,
> but this year has been quite unpredictable for me. In years past, I'd
> get to the weekend and have energy to do other projects, but this year so
> far, I've just been exhausted at the end of each week.
>
> What I need to do is take a vacation and work on it.
>
> Jim
If I have time later I might bump this thread and try my hand at it myself (if
you don't mind). I've done language conversions once or twice before using
regular expressions. However, if I'm expected to start from scratch I will
choose to use languages I'm more conversant in such as WScript (Windows only)
or Lua, rather than Perl as one might expect or prefer.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:33:03 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> If I have time later I might bump this thread and try my hand at it
> myself (if you don't mind). I've done language conversions once or twice
> before using regular expressions. However, if I'm expected to start from
> scratch I will choose to use languages I'm more conversant in such as
> WScript (Windows only) or Lua, rather than Perl as one might expect or
> prefer.
I don't mind as long as Chris & co don't mind me providing the sources
(or if he wants to). Chris?
What I've determined so far is that translation to wiki format should be
pretty straightforward; it's translation back to the custom markup that's
more of a challenge, because that's used to generate chm files as well as
other formats - so the information that isn't wiki-able needs to be
preserved somehow - probably in HTML comments embedded in the page. At
the same time, it needs to be transparent for edits as well within the
wiki. That's the underlying challenge.
awk/Perl/C/C++ are the tools I'm most familiar with.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"SharkD" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I was wondering what the plans were for porting the documentation over to the
> wiki. Can this be done programatically?
>
> -Mike
I seem to recall there was a question of the copyright on the documentation
which prevents it from being transferred verbatim to the wiki. Is this not the
case?
Cheers
Eddie
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:07:39 -0400, POVeddie wrote:
> I seem to recall there was a question of the copyright on the
> documentation which prevents it from being transferred verbatim to the
> wiki. Is this not the case?
POV-Team owns the docs and the wiki, unless I missed something.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
POVeddie <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I seem to recall there was a question of the copyright on the documentation
> which prevents it from being transferred verbatim to the wiki. Is this not the
> case?
I believe you are simply confused by the source code of POV-Ray having
partially complicated ownership. I don't remember the documentation ever
having such problem. (OTOH, in theory it could be so.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:42:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I believe you are simply confused by the source code of POV-Ray having
> partially complicated ownership. I don't remember the documentation ever
> having such problem. (OTOH, in theory it could be so.)
I think that's a distinct possibility. AFAIK though, the doc is owned
collectively by the team, isn't it?
Even if it wasn't, though, it's posted on the POV website and the POV
team owns the wiki and the website, so I can't see how there could be a
problem.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I believe you are simply confused by the source code of POV-Ray having
> partially complicated ownership. I don't remember the documentation ever
> having such problem. (OTOH, in theory it could be so.)
Nope, nothing to do with the source code copyrights. ;)
I did some digging around to find what I was dimly remembering and found
it in the "Planning needed" section here:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation_Talk:Contents
Cheers
Eddie
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:486a5680$1@news.povray.org Jim Henderson wrote:
> The doc itself is in a type of markup that *should* be translatable
> to Wiki format - the challenge is making the translation
> bidirectional (so the updated doc in the wiki can be re-exported and
> converted to the other formats again).
>
wouldn't it be enough to publish the docpages as wikipages without
giving the users the ability to edit de documentation, but they should
be able to comment, discuss and propose additions to the documentation.
The documentation editor can make changes to the docs based on this and
republish the page.
This prevents all kinds of wikiwars on the docs itself and saves you
from find a way to convert wiki to doc.
ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
