Re: use doc-base not dwww for doco pkgs (was Re: menu system)
"Jim" == Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com> writes:
> Adam Di Carlo <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> writes:
>> Even the dwww maintainer, AFAIK, advocates doc-base rather than
>> using dwww menu files directly. Plus they have a nicer syntax.
>> Plus I have big plans for an RDF metadata repository once we get
>> slink out the door and I get some breathing room again.
> I'll second that. :-)
> Dwww is undergoing a rewrite (too late for slink, unfortunately). I
> haven't played around much with doc-base yet, but I think that's
> definitely the way to go.
Yes, well, btw, ultimately my plan is to supply an RDF data store for
all documentation metadata. This simplifies implementation for me
since anything which can parse simple RDF schema XML can directly get
at a list of all the documentation packages and their metadata
(author, section, upstream URL, whatever). So I wouldn't have to
write an API. Also, theoretically, you could write a little DSSSL
file which would generate nice HTML indexes of locally available
documentation; in a way, that sorta trumps what dhelp and dwww already
does. Another idea is to spit out a little shared bookmarks file as
well so people could have the moral equivalent of menu's application
thing for docuemntation in their browser.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: