Some Assistance Please

Adrien Monteleone adrien.monteleone at
Thu May 25 12:49:11 EDT 2017

Thank you Derek,

This improves my understanding of the current situation considerably.

Certainly as I noted, I have no issue using the present methods.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.



> On May 25, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at> wrote:
> Adrien,
> Adrien Monteleone <adrien.monteleone at> writes:
>> Geert,
>> If the opposite were possible, would that meet the needs?
>> If using the wiki as the collaboration platform opened up
>> documentation editing to non-developer types but still gave you the
>> desired formats, is that what you are looking for or are there other
>> needs?
> This was the road we've looked at and attempted in the past -- moving
> the documentation development onto the Wiki and then using that to
> produce the various formats required for yelp, windows help, etc.  The
> results were.... less than stunning.
> This is why we're reluctant to try again without an existence proof that
> the tools have significantly improved and will produce documentation
> that is at least as good as the current process.
>> Looking over, there are methods using our own render
>> server (or a public one if so desired) and extension plugins to export
>> a variety of formats including XHTML, PDF, ePUB, ZIM, ODF, and yes,
>> DocBook XML. There’s also the option of using PediaPress for people to
>> order a physical bound copy if they so desire.
> If we could translate into Docbook then we could leverage the existing
> tools to generate the outputs we require.  However, how well does the
> tool translate from wiki -> Docbook?
>> The only one presently offered I don’t see included as an extension is
>> MOBI though there are many tools to take any of those other formats to
>> MOBI if really needed. I would think it not too difficult to script
>> the conversion of a resulting ePUB into MOBI. Clicking the MOBI
>> download link could take a trip through ePUB and then the ePub2Mobi
>> conversion to serve the desired file. Is there still a significant
>> case for .mobi files due to .mobi only readers? Is there a current
>> comparison of download stats from
> I dont know if there are download stats available from code and/or www.
>> An additional advantage of using the wiki as the working and
>> publishing platform is that formats are generated on-demand by the
>> render server. Thus any time someone downloads a copy of the
>> documentation it will always be the most up to date, rather than a
>> milestone-released static version. If that is not desired I suppose
>> some method of drafts vs. published approved pages would suffice, but
>> that will more than likely be handled by control of editing
>> credentials.
> That's not desired; we want the documentation to match the release.
> Someone with 2.4 is better served with the 2.4 documentation.  Someone
> with 2.6 with the 2.6 documentation.  Someone running 2.4 who looks at
> the 2.6 docs might get confused.
>> The render server can also be configured to ‘publish’ specific
>> collections of articles so that the wiki could contain the entirety of
>> the help, tutorial and concepts guide, developer documentation, et
>> cetera, and then particular links will give you a single file of any
>> one of those. So if someone wanted a printed copy of the help and a
>> pdf of the tutorial and concepts guide, they could get each separately
>> all from the wiki and all with the most current approved edits.
> The developer documentation is generated by doxygen from the source
> code.  Moving that into the wiki would be, IMHO, the wrong thing to do.
> The dev docs should live with the code.
>> Just a thought.
>> -Adrien
> -derek
> -- 
>       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
>       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
>       URL:    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
>       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list