Tools for the HTML manuals
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:24:00 -0500
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:07:36 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Robert Graham Merkel <email@example.com> said:
> Christopher Browne writes:
> > At some point, I should "steal" access to at least the English
> > documentation tree, and turn it into a set of DocBook material.
> > It'll probably take a couple of days, and that won't be _this_ week.
> > --
> One question here - if the gnucash source tree stores the
> documentation in DocBook format, what tools will we require to turn it
> into HTML? Is it the same set of tools that the other gnome apps use?
> I'm wary of introducing another obscure build dependancy here.
There _are_ well-known tools for transforming DocBook to HTML.
My makefile has:
jade -ioutput.html -d $(DSL) -t sgml book.doc
And making that all work out normally requires three packages:
b) DocBook DTD
c) Norm Walsh's Modular Style Sheets
which are all available in RPM and .deb form.
Should we have HTML, or SGML in the source tree? is the question.
- If both, then there is the risk that someone may modify the HTML,
and then watch it get overwritten the next time someone upstream runs
"make," and builds fresh HTML.
- If only SGML, then that forces anyone that gets a CVS archive
to add yet another component to those that they install.
Upside is that the tools are reasonably mature now, unlike, say,
> Other than that, this sounds like an excellent idea, and if you want
> me to do any/all of the work (particularly the grunt work), mail me.
> I don't know much about DocBook yet, but I'm going to have to learn
> anyway, so now is as good a time as any...
It's basically got (rather) a few more tags than HTML, and allows
you to do inclusions as well as generating multiple output files.
e.g. - I have a main document file, "book.doc," which includes in
the other 71 files, and then they split off, <sect1> by <sect1>,
each into a separate HTML output file.
All of that is _standard_ SGML behaviour; no "funny custom
oddball Chris stuff."
I'm liable to generate something complex enough to be worth
looking at closely, but won't be doing anything _bizarrely_
firstname.lastname@example.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
"If all you can see is vast masses of end-users chewing their cud and
running Win95 on Gateways, then what good is platform independence?"
-- David LeBlanc (email@example.com)