 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:32:55 -0400, ingo wrote:
> 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.
Even still, the challenge remains of getting the data both in and out of
the wiki for publication in the various formats. The import itself isn't
completely straightforward (have a look at my userpage for an early
attempt with one section).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:48753b6f@news.povray.org Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even still, the challenge remains of getting the data both in and out
> of the wiki for publication in the various formats.
either I was not clear or you misunderstood, I only want to convert
from the current doc format to the wiki, not back. The editor can copy
past the suggestions from the wiki into the orginal documentation, edit
it if needed and add the tags needed for the povdoc format. Even if
there is a simple wiki>povdoc conversion, an editor will have to go
through the whole thing anyway to ad tags like the <indexentry>
I don't see this documentation maintained by the community without a
responsible editor and editing is a hands on job. 've done it quite a
few years ;)
ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:03:55 -0400, ingo wrote:
> in news:48753b6f@news.povray.org Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Even still, the challenge remains of getting the data both in and out
>> of the wiki for publication in the various formats.
>
> either I was not clear or you misunderstood, I only want to convert from
> the current doc format to the wiki, not back. The editor can copy past
> the suggestions from the wiki into the orginal documentation, edit it if
> needed and add the tags needed for the povdoc format. Even if there is a
> simple wiki>povdoc conversion, an editor will have to go through the
> whole thing anyway to ad tags like the <indexentry>
The goal is to make the job easier for the editor as well. :-)
> I don't see this documentation maintained by the community without a
> responsible editor and editing is a hands on job. 've done it quite a
> few years ;)
As have I, along with having written a couple of books along the way. :-)
The way it's done IME in the publishing world is that there's a template
that provides instructions to typesetting equipment - so, for example, a
particular style would say "this is a tip" and defines in the typesetting
how the information should look.
From the standpoint of maintaining the doc, something similar would make
sense here. The intent would be that not everyone could edit, but to
make the transition back to the markup used by the POV team means less
chance of content confusion, misplaced headers, and things like that.
The more automation there is, the better, since everyone here is a
volunteer. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
