You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com> on 2012/04/09 03:45:31 UTC
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Makes sense to me. However, I don't think it's necessary to have all
>> documentation as such. Perhaps just the Day to day stuff can be translated
>> (things that are more likely to change).
>>
>
> There aren't too many docs whose content change on a frequent basis.
> Probably only the status.xml content.
>
>
>> That's my current plan, anyway (although I don't yet know how to make
>> that happen). Ye olde documentation can remain on xdoc format, or better
>> yet get converted to Docbook format.
>>
>
> I certainly have no problem with using MD as the source format for README
> and similar content, and would suggest these be converted to MD. I do have
> a problem with replacing current XML marked up xdoc sources with MD
> sources, though I'd be open to considering this on a case by case basis if
> there is good cause.
>
I understand the desire to retain the XML-based format of the
documentation. My primary purpose in doing the migration, was to see if it
would be as easy as pie to get the data converted to CMS-based format. I've
got more work to do (namely, to get the versioned docs => MarkDown), but it
was pretty simple. Updating is *way* more simple than the Forrest-based
method.
> Regarding XML source formats, right now we have xdoc, and it would take
> some effort for probably questionable results to convert to another XML
> schema. Plus that would require some additional learning curve or tool
> change for authors, so I'm not sure about changing to another XML format.
>
Thanks to a Forrest 'MarkDown' plugin, it doesn't take too long to convert
from xdoc to MarkDown.
> For output formats, obviously we need HTML, but if it is useful to output
> MD, then I see no problem with someone adding that to the publish build
> process. I think it is useful to also continue publishing in PDF output
> format as well, if for no other reason than to exercise FOP. Otherwise, I
> don't have any strong preferences. For example, I have no love for forrest
> if another doc management system will be an improvement.
>
On the side of losing the FOP part of the docs process, perhaps one
possibility for FOP's site eating its own dogfood, would be if we could
create a web service to generate PDF from each web page, perhaps
using PDFBox[1] or HTML2fo[2], which is a bit stale but useful.
So if you can find a way to transition to CMS as the doc management system
> while still reusing the existing source formats and output formats (modulo
> the above), then I have no objection to that.
>
Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
[1] Apache PDFBox
http://pdfbox.apache.org/
[2] HTML2fo
http://html2fo.sourceforge.net/
Kind regards,
Clay Leeds
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr>
> wrote:
>
> But there has to be a better way. Can we, as a start, change the CSS file
> xmlgraphics.css so it doesn't have body {color: white;}?
>
> > Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long)
> compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview
> pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
>
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
>
> Thanks again for the assistance!
>
> Clay
I've committed a change to the CSS, which at least makes it black text on
white background (white on white is difficult to read unless you're a
wizard!).
We'll still need to figure out a solution for the coloring and such... We
should be able to come up with some solution... If nothing else, we could
always commit an HTML file, but we need to find a method to make it so the
CMS doesn't replace it or something silly...
Hand editing all the lines in that file just doesn't seem efficient!
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr>
> wrote:
>
> But there has to be a better way. Can we, as a start, change the CSS file
> xmlgraphics.css so it doesn't have body {color: white;}?
>
> > Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long)
> compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview
> pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
>
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
>
> Thanks again for the assistance!
>
> Clay
I've committed a change to the CSS, which at least makes it black text on
white background (white on white is difficult to read unless you're a
wizard!).
We'll still need to figure out a solution for the coloring and such... We
should be able to come up with some solution... If nothing else, we could
always commit an HTML file, but we need to find a method to make it so the
CMS doesn't replace it or something silly...
Hand editing all the lines in that file just doesn't seem efficient!
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr>
> wrote:
>
> But there has to be a better way. Can we, as a start, change the CSS file
> xmlgraphics.css so it doesn't have body {color: white;}?
>
> > Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long)
> compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview
> pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
>
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
>
> Thanks again for the assistance!
>
> Clay
I've committed a change to the CSS, which at least makes it black text on
white background (white on white is difficult to read unless you're a
wizard!).
We'll still need to figure out a solution for the coloring and such... We
should be able to come up with some solution... If nothing else, we could
always commit an HTML file, but we need to find a method to make it so the
CMS doesn't replace it or something silly...
Hand editing all the lines in that file just doesn't seem efficient!
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> great job, Clay!
>
> I've looked at the compliance page closer, and it seems that rendering doesn't support markdown extras (like "table" or "headerid"), when it is said here [1] that such features are enabled for the CMS.
>
> As a workaround, we can insert html markup inside the markdown, I tried it successfully with the legend table (in the preview pane).
>
> In staging view, there is a CSS issue:
> xmlgraphics.css@17 > body {color: white;} is taken into acccount,
> regardless this rule:
> xmlgraphics.css@17 > #content {color: #333333;}
Wow! Nice work! It's nice to have help on this!
But there has to be a better way. Can we, as a start, change the CSS file xmlgraphics.css so it doesn't have body {color: white;}?
> Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long) compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
Thanks again for the assistance!
Clay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> great job, Clay!
>
> I've looked at the compliance page closer, and it seems that rendering doesn't support markdown extras (like "table" or "headerid"), when it is said here [1] that such features are enabled for the CMS.
>
> As a workaround, we can insert html markup inside the markdown, I tried it successfully with the legend table (in the preview pane).
>
> In staging view, there is a CSS issue:
> xmlgraphics.css@17 > body {color: white;} is taken into acccount,
> regardless this rule:
> xmlgraphics.css@17 > #content {color: #333333;}
Wow! Nice work! It's nice to have help on this!
But there has to be a better way. Can we, as a start, change the CSS file xmlgraphics.css so it doesn't have body {color: white;}?
> Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long) compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
Thanks again for the assistance!
Clay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 20, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> great job, Clay!
>
> I've looked at the compliance page closer, and it seems that rendering doesn't support markdown extras (like "table" or "headerid"), when it is said here [1] that such features are enabled for the CMS.
>
> As a workaround, we can insert html markup inside the markdown, I tried it successfully with the legend table (in the preview pane).
>
> In staging view, there is a CSS issue:
> xmlgraphics.css@17 > body {color: white;} is taken into acccount,
> regardless this rule:
> xmlgraphics.css@17 > #content {color: #333333;}
Wow! Nice work! It's nice to have help on this!
But there has to be a better way. Can we, as a start, change the CSS file xmlgraphics.css so it doesn't have body {color: white;}?
> Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long) compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
Thanks again for the assistance!
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Pascal Sancho <pa...@takoma.fr>.
Hi,
great job, Clay!
I've looked at the compliance page closer, and it seems that rendering
doesn't support markdown extras (like "table" or "headerid"), when it is
said here [1] that such features are enabled for the CMS.
As a workaround, we can insert html markup inside the markdown, I tried
it successfully with the legend table (in the preview pane).
In staging view, there is a CSS issue:
xmlgraphics.css@17 > body {color: white;} is taken into acccount,
regardless this rule:
xmlgraphics.css@17 > #content {color: #333333;}
Note that I have to be very patient when editing the (very long)
compliance page directly, since it is rendered directly in the preview
pane. Don't try it if your processor is a little out of age (;-|
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#markdown
Le 20/04/2012 04:43, The Web Maestro a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Chris Bowditch
> <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com <ma...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
>
> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
>
>
> Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the
> "TM" characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top
> level XML Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
>
>
> Sorry, thought you were talking about the graphic. I fixed the text.
>
> BTW, it's pretty easy for anyone to edit with the CMS now. Here's the
> Apache CMS Reference:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html
>
> That will give you a bookmarklet you can use to edit any STAGING page:
>
> Here's your starting point for the XML Graphics Staging site:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
> Once we're good to go, anyone will also be able to start editing the
> markdown files themselves...
--
Pascal
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
>
>> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
>>
>
> Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the "TM"
> characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top level XML
> Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
Sorry, thought you were talking about the graphic. I fixed the text.
BTW, it's pretty easy for anyone to edit with the CMS now. Here's the
Apache CMS Reference:
http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html
That will give you a bookmarklet you can use to edit any STAGING page:
Here's your starting point for the XML Graphics Staging site:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
Once we're good to go, anyone will also be able to start editing the
markdown files themselves...
Cheers!
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
>
>> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
>>
>
> Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the "TM"
> characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top level XML
> Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
Sorry, thought you were talking about the graphic. I fixed the text.
BTW, it's pretty easy for anyone to edit with the CMS now. Here's the
Apache CMS Reference:
http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html
That will give you a bookmarklet you can use to edit any STAGING page:
Here's your starting point for the XML Graphics Staging site:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
Once we're good to go, anyone will also be able to start editing the
markdown files themselves...
Cheers!
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
>
>> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
>>
>
> Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the "TM"
> characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top level XML
> Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
Sorry, thought you were talking about the graphic. I fixed the text.
BTW, it's pretty easy for anyone to edit with the CMS now. Here's the
Apache CMS Reference:
http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html
That will give you a bookmarklet you can use to edit any STAGING page:
Here's your starting point for the XML Graphics Staging site:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
Once we're good to go, anyone will also be able to start editing the
markdown files themselves...
Cheers!
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the "TM"
characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top level XML
Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
>
> I'm not at a place I can publish, but if someone can publish the PRODUCTION sites, the logo will show up (be sure to clear cache!).
Cache definitely cleared. I know its only 1 page, but since its the top
page it's important that it adheres to Apache Branding rules.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Clay
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Clay,
>>>>
>>>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>>>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
>> Hi Clay,
>>
>>> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>> Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>>
>>>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>>>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>>>
>>>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>>>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
>>> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>>>
>>> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
>> I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache. Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the "TM"
characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top level XML
Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
>
> I'm not at a place I can publish, but if someone can publish the PRODUCTION sites, the logo will show up (be sure to clear cache!).
Cache definitely cleared. I know its only 1 page, but since its the top
page it's important that it adheres to Apache Branding rules.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Clay
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Clay,
>>>>
>>>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>>>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
>> Hi Clay,
>>
>>> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>> Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>>
>>>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>>>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>>>
>>>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>>>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
>>> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>>>
>>> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
>> I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache. Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 19/04/2012 02:02, Clay Leeds wrote:
> I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
Thanks Clay - I can see the new logo fine. I was referring to the "TM"
characters in the text. I can see it everywhere except the top level XML
Graphics home page, which is a page I definitely changed.
>
> I'm not at a place I can publish, but if someone can publish the PRODUCTION sites, the logo will show up (be sure to clear cache!).
Cache definitely cleared. I know its only 1 page, but since its the top
page it's important that it adheres to Apache Branding rules.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Clay
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Clay,
>>>>
>>>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>>>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
>> Hi Clay,
>>
>>> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>> Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>>
>>>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>>>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>>>
>>>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>>>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
>>> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>>>
>>> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
>> I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache. Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
I'm not at a place I can publish, but if someone can publish the PRODUCTION sites, the logo will show up (be sure to clear cache!).
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Clay,
>>>
>>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
>
> Hi Clay,
>
>> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>
> Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>
>>
>>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>>
>>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>>
>>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
>> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>>
>> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
>
> I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache. Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
I'm not at a place I can publish, but if someone can publish the PRODUCTION sites, the logo will show up (be sure to clear cache!).
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Clay,
>>>
>>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
>
> Hi Clay,
>
>> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>
> Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>
>>
>>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>>
>>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>>
>>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
>> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>>
>> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
>
> I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache. Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
I replaced the logo for all sites a month or so ago.
I'm not at a place I can publish, but if someone can publish the PRODUCTION sites, the logo will show up (be sure to clear cache!).
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Clay,
>>>
>>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
>
> Hi Clay,
>
>> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>
> Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>
>>
>>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>>
>>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>>
>>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
>> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>>
>> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
>
> I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache. Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>
>> Hi Clay,
>>
>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
Hi Clay,
> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>
>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>
>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>
>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>
> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache.
Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
Thanks,
Chris
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>
>> Hi Clay,
>>
>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
Hi Clay,
> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>
>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>
>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>
>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>
> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache.
Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
Thanks,
Chris
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/04/2012 13:52, Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>
>> Hi Clay,
>>
>>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG& SVG formats... ;-)
>> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
Hi Clay,
> Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
Yes you are right. It was my browser cache. I can now see the updated logo.
>
>>> Sponsorship& Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>>
>>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>>
>>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
> The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
>
> Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
I can see the TM logos in most of the content after clearing the cache.
Just the XML Graphics top page doesn't appear to have them now.
Thanks,
Chris
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>
> Hi Clay,
>
>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
>
> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>> Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>
> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>
>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>
>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>
> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>
> Hi Clay,
>
>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
>
> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>> Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>
> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>
>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>
>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>
> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 18, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
>
> Hi Clay,
>
>> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
>
> Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay before that appears?
Strange. The new logo showed up when I refreshed it. Perhaps it's your cache? Try loading only the logo.
>> Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page, which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the Security page. ;-)
>
> Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>
>> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
>>
>> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links, except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
>
> All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
The current LIVE site has it, so we should be good informing the board it's there, no?
Weird. When I added the content, I did an `svn up` to ensure it was recent content. I'm sure I'll have to re-synch, anyway, so we'll see. I wish it were a caching thing!
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
Hi Clay,
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Chris Bowditch
> <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com <ma...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> BACKGROUND:
> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You
> can see progress here:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
>
> I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
> snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo
> that you designed. Also the links need to include License,
> Sponsorship, Thanks and Security as per the branding guidelines.
> This content is now live on the main site, so I guess you just
> started with a snapshot from a few weeks ago?
>
>
> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay
before that appears?
>
> Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page,
> which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with
> the Security page. ;-)
Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>
> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is
> stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is
> White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and
> layout is there).
>
> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links,
> except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they
> like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It
took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able
to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some
time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and
XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Clay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
Hi Clay,
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Chris Bowditch
> <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com <ma...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> BACKGROUND:
> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You
> can see progress here:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
>
> I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
> snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo
> that you designed. Also the links need to include License,
> Sponsorship, Thanks and Security as per the branding guidelines.
> This content is now live on the main site, so I guess you just
> started with a snapshot from a few weeks ago?
>
>
> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay
before that appears?
>
> Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page,
> which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with
> the Security page. ;-)
Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>
> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is
> stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is
> White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and
> layout is there).
>
> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links,
> except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they
> like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It
took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able
to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some
time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and
XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/04/2012 07:24, The Web Maestro wrote:
Hi Clay,
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Chris Bowditch
> <bowditch_chris@hotmail.com <ma...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> BACKGROUND:
> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You
> can see progress here:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
>
> I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
> snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo
> that you designed. Also the links need to include License,
> Sponsorship, Thanks and Security as per the branding guidelines.
> This content is now live on the main site, so I guess you just
> started with a snapshot from a few weeks ago?
>
>
> I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
Thanks, but I don't yet see it on the staging website. Is there a delay
before that appears?
>
> Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page,
> which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with
> the Security page. ;-)
Thanks. I can now see the 4 required links.
>
> I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is
> stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is
> White-On-White (but if you select the text, you'll see the content and
> layout is there).
>
> As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links,
> except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they
> like for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
All the "TM" logos are missing from the content and headers though. It
took me quite some time to add them to all the pages. Will you be able
to re-sync the content with the latest xdocs as it would take quite some
time to re-apply them and I want to tell the board that FOP, Commons and
XML Graphics sites are now brand compliant in the upcoming report.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Clay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> BACKGROUND:
>> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see
>> progress here:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.**apache.org/<http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/>
>>
>
> I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
> snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo that you
> designed. Also the links need to include License, Sponsorship, Thanks and
> Security as per the branding guidelines. This content is now live on the
> main site, so I guess you just started with a snapshot from a few weeks ago?
I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page,
which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the
Security page. ;-)
I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is
stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White
(but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links,
except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like
for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> BACKGROUND:
>> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see
>> progress here:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.**apache.org/<http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/>
>>
>
> I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
> snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo that you
> designed. Also the links need to include License, Sponsorship, Thanks and
> Security as per the branding guidelines. This content is now live on the
> main site, so I guess you just started with a snapshot from a few weeks ago?
I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page,
which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the
Security page. ;-)
I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is
stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White
(but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links,
except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like
for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> BACKGROUND:
>> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see
>> progress here:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.**apache.org/<http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/>
>>
>
> I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
> snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo that you
> designed. Also the links need to include License, Sponsorship, Thanks and
> Security as per the branding guidelines. This content is now live on the
> main site, so I guess you just started with a snapshot from a few weeks ago?
I added the logo (in GIF, JPG, PNG & SVG formats... ;-)
Sponsorship & Thanks were already there. License is on the Legal page,
which is there, but I've added it to the sidebar as well, along with the
Security page. ;-)
I also got the Compliance table working. Unfortunately, the CMS is
stripping the 'class="ForrestTable"', so the coloring is White-On-White
(but if you select the text, you'll see the content and layout is there).
As for the navigation menu, I'd like it to collapse most of the links,
except the section you're in. Anyone have a favorite jQuery menu they like
for this? If not, I'll see about finding one...
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 17/04/2012 14:59, Clay Leeds wrote:
> NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@.
Hi Clay,
Thanks for moving to general@
>
> BACKGROUND:
> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo that you
designed. Also the links need to include License, Sponsorship, Thanks
and Security as per the branding guidelines. This content is now live on
the main site, so I guess you just started with a snapshot from a few
weeks ago?
>
> ToDo:
> - Lots.
> - Style& templating work
> - Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
>
> Done:
> - most HTML content
Thanks,
Chris
> Clay
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
>> Hi Clay,
>>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>> Many thanks for working on this.
>>
>>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org<ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>>
>>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Clay Leeds
>>> --
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> -<http://ourlil.com/>
>>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro<th...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>>> FOP, Batik& Commons content into the CMS...
>>>
>>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>>
>>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>>> some other issues...
>>>
>>> Without further ado:
>>>
>>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Clay Leeds
>>> --
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> -
>>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams<glenn@skynav.com
>>> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>>
>>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>>
>>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>>> >
>>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>>> other potential negatives in converting.
>>> >
>>> > G.
>>>
>>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>>> serves a different purpose.
>>>
>>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>>> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 17/04/2012 14:59, Clay Leeds wrote:
> NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@.
Hi Clay,
Thanks for moving to general@
>
> BACKGROUND:
> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo that you
designed. Also the links need to include License, Sponsorship, Thanks
and Security as per the branding guidelines. This content is now live on
the main site, so I guess you just started with a snapshot from a few
weeks ago?
>
> ToDo:
> - Lots.
> - Style& templating work
> - Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
>
> Done:
> - most HTML content
Thanks,
Chris
> Clay
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
>> Hi Clay,
>>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>> Many thanks for working on this.
>>
>>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org<ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>>
>>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Clay Leeds
>>> --
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> -<http://ourlil.com/>
>>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro<th...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>>> FOP, Batik& Commons content into the CMS...
>>>
>>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>>
>>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>>> some other issues...
>>>
>>> Without further ado:
>>>
>>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Clay Leeds
>>> --
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> -
>>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams<glenn@skynav.com
>>> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>>
>>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>>
>>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>>> >
>>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>>> other potential negatives in converting.
>>> >
>>> > G.
>>>
>>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>>> serves a different purpose.
>>>
>>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>>> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 17/04/2012 14:59, Clay Leeds wrote:
> NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@.
Hi Clay,
Thanks for moving to general@
>
> BACKGROUND:
> We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
I realize its work in progress but it appears like you used an old
snapshot without the "TM" marks in the content or the new logo that you
designed. Also the links need to include License, Sponsorship, Thanks
and Security as per the branding guidelines. This content is now live on
the main site, so I guess you just started with a snapshot from a few
weeks ago?
>
> ToDo:
> - Lots.
> - Style& templating work
> - Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
>
> Done:
> - most HTML content
Thanks,
Chris
> Clay
>
> "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
> - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch<bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
>> Hi Clay,
>>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>> Many thanks for working on this.
>>
>>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org<ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>>
>>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Clay Leeds
>>> --
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> -<http://ourlil.com/>
>>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro<th...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>>> FOP, Batik& Commons content into the CMS...
>>>
>>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>>
>>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>>> some other issues...
>>>
>>> Without further ado:
>>>
>>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Clay Leeds
>>> --
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> -
>>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>>> <th...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams<glenn@skynav.com
>>> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>>
>>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>>
>>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>>> >
>>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>>> other potential negatives in converting.
>>> >
>>> > G.
>>>
>>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>>> serves a different purpose.
>>>
>>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>>> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@.
BACKGROUND:
We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
ToDo:
- Lots.
- Style & templating work
- Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
Done:
- most HTML content
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
> Hi Clay,
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>
> Many thanks for working on this.
>
>>
>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org <ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>
>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>
> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> - <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>> FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>>
>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>
>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>> some other issues...
>>
>> Without further ado:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
>> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>
>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>
>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>> >
>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>> other potential negatives in converting.
>> >
>> > G.
>>
>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>> serves a different purpose.
>>
>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@.
BACKGROUND:
We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
ToDo:
- Lots.
- Style & templating work
- Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
Done:
- most HTML content
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
> Hi Clay,
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>
> Many thanks for working on this.
>
>>
>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org <ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>
>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>
> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> - <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>> FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>>
>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>
>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>> some other issues...
>>
>> Without further ado:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
>> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>
>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>
>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>> >
>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>> other potential negatives in converting.
>> >
>> > G.
>>
>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>> serves a different purpose.
>>
>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
NOTE: Moving discussion to general@. Please make all further responses to general@.
BACKGROUND:
We are discussing moving XML Graphics web site to ASF-CMS. You can see progress here:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
ToDo:
- Lots.
- Style & templating work
- Non-HTML content (figure out how to handle java-docs, download.cgi, demo stuff, etc.--might not be too difficult, just a matter of committing to CMS content/ dirs?)
Done:
- most HTML content
Clay
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
>> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and 'dev'):
> Hi Clay,
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs, download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
>
> Many thanks for working on this.
>
>>
>> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org <ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
>>
>> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
>
> Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub projects of XML Graphics.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> - <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
>> FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>>
>> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
>> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
>> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
>> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>>
>> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
>> some other issues...
>>
>> Without further ado:
>>
>> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Clay Leeds
>> --
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
>> <http://ourlil.com/>
>> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
>> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
>> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
>> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
>> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
>> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
>> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
>> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
>> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
>> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
>> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
>> It could be done as a separate step later.
>>
>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
>> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>
>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
>> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
>> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
>> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
>> consequence? I don't know yet.
>> >
>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
>> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
>> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
>> other potential negatives in converting.
>> >
>> > G.
>>
>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
>> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
>> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
>> serves a different purpose.
>>
>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
>> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/
> and 'dev'):
Hi Clay,
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs,
> download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take
> a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might
> Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
Many thanks for working on this.
>
> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to
> general@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> <ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing
> list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out
> where it should go.
>
> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes
> to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub
projects of XML Graphics.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Clay Leeds
> --
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
> <http://ourlil.com/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
> FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>
> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>
> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
> some other issues...
>
> Without further ado:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Clay Leeds
> --
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
> <http://ourlil.com/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
> It could be done as a separate step later.
>
> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>
> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
> consequence? I don't know yet.
> >
> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
> other potential negatives in converting.
> >
> > G.
>
> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
> serves a different purpose.
>
> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
Thx for the comments Glenn,
On Apr 15, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
initial comments:
> the navigation panel on the left needs to start in a collapsed mode, and remember its settings as you move to sub-projects and their descendants; possibly better would be to limit what is in the navigation panel to the content of each currently selected sub-project or home, while retaining expansion within that set of content;
I'll likely make it collapse everything but the section you are in. I don't think it'll remember state, so much as be aware of where you are. I'm thinking we'll be using jQuery for that but perhaps that'll include state?
But I'm open to code additions... ;-)
> table formatting is broken, cf. compliance.html and complexscripts.html
Excellent! Thank you so much for checking up.
We might just paste that code in as straight HTML.
> header margins seem strange; h[134] are aligned (on left) but h2 is indented; cf. complexscripts.html
I need to format the page templates and such (the Nav collapse stuff will be a part of that).
> also, since you are now in the process of making these changes, what should we do with current site doc updates? i.e., can i continue to commit changes to fop/src/documentation/content/xdocs and you will pick up these changes at some point? or should we hold off on any changes until you have finished?
I'm not sure. I think we should probably do both. The CMS process is simple enough but I hate the prospect of double work for anyone.
We should tag the web content for XML Graphics, FOP, Batik, & Commons, so we could have a reference point.
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:52 PM, The Web Maestro
<th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and
> 'dev'):
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
initial comments:
- the navigation panel on the left needs to start in a collapsed mode,
and remember its settings as you move to sub-projects and their
descendants; possibly better would be to limit what is in the navigation
panel to the content of each currently selected sub-project or home, while
retaining expansion within that set of content;
- table formatting is broken, cf.
compliance.html<http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/fop/compliance.html>and
complexscripts.html<http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/fop/trunk/complexscripts.html>
- header margins seem strange; h[134] are aligned (on left) but h2 is
indented; cf.
complexscripts.html<http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/fop/trunk/complexscripts.html>
also, since you are now in the process of making these changes, what should
we do with current site doc updates? i.e., can i continue to commit changes
to fop/src/documentation/content/xdocs and you will pick up these changes
at some point? or should we hold off on any changes until you have finished?
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 15/04/2012 19:52, The Web Maestro wrote:
> I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/
> and 'dev'):
Hi Clay,
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
> As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs,
> download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take
> a look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might
> Just Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
Many thanks for working on this.
>
> Come to think of it, we should probably move this to
> general@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> <ma...@xmlgraphics.apache.org>. Or is there a better mailing
> list? I'll refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out
> where it should go.
>
> Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes
> to all XML Graphics Project web docs?
Yes this discussion should move to general@ as it will affect all sub
projects of XML Graphics.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Clay Leeds
> --
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
> <http://ourlil.com/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the
> FOP, Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>
> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a
> preliminary job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's
> incomplete and ugly as sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to
> hide (collapse?) non-relevant links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>
> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps
> some other issues...
>
> Without further ado:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Clay Leeds
> --
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> -
> <http://ourlil.com/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds
> <the.webmaestro@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable.
> However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be
> converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct
> an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would
> be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to
> MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could
> merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should
> not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time.
> It could be done as a separate step later.
>
> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be
> scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>
> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the
> conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source
> docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich
> as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of
> consequence? I don't know yet.
> >
> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the
> ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a
> consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify
> other potential negatives in converting.
> >
> > G.
>
> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers,
> before I complete the task of converting the docs. The
> MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it
> serves a different purpose.
>
> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on.
> But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
>
>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
I just added most of the nav for FOP Development (0.95, 1.0, trunk/ and
'dev'):
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
As mentioned, there are likely missing things (like java-docs,
download.cgi, Batik's DEMO, etc.)... It'd be great if folks could take a
look... I haven't figured out how to add other content, but It Might Just
Work(tm) if weupload it there via SVN...
Come to think of it, we should probably move this to
general@xmlgraphics.apache.org. Or is there a better mailing list? I'll
refrain from sending to other lists, until we figure out where it should go.
Any ideas where this discussion should move, since it entails changes to
all XML Graphics Project web docs?
Kind regards,
Clay Leeds
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM, The Web Maestro
<th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the FOP,
> Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
>
> We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a preliminary
> job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's incomplete and ugly as
> sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to hide (collapse?) non-relevant
> links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
>
> We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps some other
> issues...
>
> Without further ado:
>
> http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Clay Leeds
> --
> <th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable. However,
>> presumably the current xdocs would need to be converted to MD, in which
>> case someone will need to construct an XSLT to do so. That begs the
>> question of whether it would be necessary (at this time) to convert the
>> source format to MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process
>> could merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should not be
>> necessary to change the authoring format at this time. It could be done as
>> a separate step later.
>>
>> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be scripted,
>> but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>>
>> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the conversion to MD in
>> terms of ability to markup our source docs. Clearly, MD is not as
>> semantically or syntactically rich as an XML based source. But do we lose
>> anything of consequence? I don't know yet.
>> >
>> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the ability to use
>> CMS in-page editing. So that is a consideration. Perhaps that option is
>> sufficient to justify other potential negatives in converting.
>> >
>> > G.
>>
>> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers, before I
>> complete the task of converting the docs. The MarkDown format is not nearly
>> as semantic as xdoc, but it serves a different purpose.
>>
>> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on. But I was
>> hoping for some discussion ;-)
>>
>>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
I've updated the docs a bit, and gotten much (but not all!) of the FOP,
Batik & Commons content into the CMS...
We're still missing an adequate navigation system, so I did a preliminary
job of getting a few links in the sidenav, but it's incomplete and ugly as
sin. We'll need to build a mechanism to hide (collapse?) non-relevant
links, but that shouldn't be too hard.
We also need to figure out java-docs, download.cgi, and perhaps some other
issues...
Without further ado:
http://xmlgraphics.staging.apache.org/
Kind regards,
Clay Leeds
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> > Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable. However,
> presumably the current xdocs would need to be converted to MD, in which
> case someone will need to construct an XSLT to do so. That begs the
> question of whether it would be necessary (at this time) to convert the
> source format to MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process
> could merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should not be
> necessary to change the authoring format at this time. It could be done as
> a separate step later.
>
> I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be scripted,
> but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
>
> > What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the conversion to MD in
> terms of ability to markup our source docs. Clearly, MD is not as
> semantically or syntactically rich as an XML based source. But do we lose
> anything of consequence? I don't know yet.
> >
> > One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the ability to use
> CMS in-page editing. So that is a consideration. Perhaps that option is
> sufficient to justify other potential negatives in converting.
> >
> > G.
>
> One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers, before I
> complete the task of converting the docs. The MarkDown format is not nearly
> as semantic as xdoc, but it serves a different purpose.
>
> It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on. But I was
> hoping for some discussion ;-)
>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable. However, presumably the current xdocs would need to be converted to MD, in which case someone will need to construct an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it would be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to MD, or if an additional step in the CMS based process could merely perform that step automatically. If so, then it should not be necessary to change the authoring format at this time. It could be done as a separate step later.
I am using Forrest 0.8 w markdown plugin. Conversion could be scripted, but that would negate the benefit of the CMS.
> What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the conversion to MD in terms of ability to markup our source docs. Clearly, MD is not as semantically or syntactically rich as an XML based source. But do we lose anything of consequence? I don't know yet.
>
> One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the ability to use CMS in-page editing. So that is a consideration. Perhaps that option is sufficient to justify other potential negatives in converting.
>
> G.
One of my goals, was to see some discussion in the DEVers, before I complete the task of converting the docs. The MarkDown format is not nearly as semantic as xdoc, but it serves a different purpose.
It'll take some time, and I'm still prepared to take it on. But I was hoping for some discussion ;-)
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Thanks for explaining. Based on the above I agree keeping xdocs seems
> overkill. I'm happy to move to markdown if that is the best alternative.
> Are there any options?
>
Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable. However, presumably
the current xdocs would need to be converted to MD, in which case someone
will need to construct an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether
it would be necessary (at this time) to convert the source format to MD, or
if an additional step in the CMS based process could merely perform that
step automatically. If so, then it should not be necessary to change the
authoring format at this time. It could be done as a separate step later.
What I don't know yet is what we will lose from the conversion to MD in
terms of ability to markup our source docs. Clearly, MD is not as
semantically or syntactically rich as an XML based source. But do we lose
anything of consequence? I don't know yet.
One thing we may lose if we don't convert to MD is the ability to use CMS
in-page editing. So that is a consideration. Perhaps that option is
sufficient to justify other potential negatives in converting.
G.
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 12/04/2012 10:09, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Vincent,
> My preference is to keep things as simple as possible. If keeping the
> docs in xdoc format complicates the publishing process, then I’m not in
> favour of it.
>
> In particular, I’d like to remove the dependency on Forrest. Publishing
> with Forrest is too heavy and involves too many manual steps. Also,
> customizing the output implies to get your hands dirty in Forrest’s
> internals, and given the status of Forrest I don’t think it’s worth the
> investment.
>
> I think the Markdown approach should fully fulfil our goal to have the
> documentation up-to-date and easily published on a modern-looking
> website.
>
> The only interest of keeping the xdoc format is to create some PDF
> output, but I question the interest of it. As I’ve already mentioned the
> current output looks terrible and doesn’t do any honour to FOP.
>
> Even if we were able to improve the look, I don’t think the content
> itself is suitable for a print output (think book). Converting every
> page to a PDF document like can currently be done seems useless to me.
> It would be more useful to aggregate a whole tab (for example, all the
> documentation for version 1.0) into one document laid out like a book
> with a TOC and everything.
>
> However, doing this requires a significant amount of work that I don’t
> know if anybody is prepared to do. And book documents are not the area
> where FOP excels anyway, so having a really good-looking output may
> involve too much manual tweaking.
>
> And I’m not sure what that brings us in terms of testing if there is no
> automatic way to check to outputs.
>
> Therefore, I think the potential benefits of keeping the xdoc format
> doesn’t justify the loss of convenience in updating the website.
Thanks for explaining. Based on the above I agree keeping xdocs seems
overkill. I'm happy to move to markdown if that is the best alternative.
Are there any options?
Thanks,
Chris
>
>
>> Again, I don't particularly see a problem that needs to be solved with
>> switching to CMS. True, publishing FOP site docs is presently a little
>> clunky, but I was able to figure it out (from scratch) in a few hours, and
>> can reproduce it at will. Of course, if people.apache.org is really going
>> away in 2012, then I agree something has to be done.
>>
>> If you have cycles to spend on FOP documentation, I would prefer you spend
>> it on updating the site and wiki docs, which are, in many cases, quite out
>> of date. However, how you use your time is your call. :)
> I see that Clay has done some work in styling the experimental website
> and it’s already looking better than what we currently have. Keep up the
> good work Clay!
>
>
>> Regards,
>> G.
>
> Vincent
>
>
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Vincent Hennebert <vh...@gmail.com>.
On 09/04/12 15:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
>>> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
>>> benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
>>>
>>
>> What prevents you from using the existing xdoc format as source, then
>> using an XSLT to map to MD whence it can be imported into / processed by
>> the CMS. Or can you incorporate this translation process into the CMS?
>>
>>
>> Nothing prevents, but the goal is in this exercise is to minimize launch
>> preparation time. ;-)
>>
>> If we continue to use xdoc, the CMS is skipped. It's certainly possible,
>> but...
>>
>
> Could you not use the "dynamic content" approach indicated by
> http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#dynamic-content? For example, use
> buildbot to run the forrest markdown
> plugin<http://forrest.apache.org/pluginDocs/plugins_0_80/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.Markdown/>.
> Or
> use an External Build <http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#external>?
>
> My main issue is switching our source format for FOP docs from XML to MD.
> I'm not comfortable with making this change. However, if my position is a
> minority among FOP committers, I will defer to the majority.
My preference is to keep things as simple as possible. If keeping the
docs in xdoc format complicates the publishing process, then I’m not in
favour of it.
In particular, I’d like to remove the dependency on Forrest. Publishing
with Forrest is too heavy and involves too many manual steps. Also,
customizing the output implies to get your hands dirty in Forrest’s
internals, and given the status of Forrest I don’t think it’s worth the
investment.
I think the Markdown approach should fully fulfil our goal to have the
documentation up-to-date and easily published on a modern-looking
website.
The only interest of keeping the xdoc format is to create some PDF
output, but I question the interest of it. As I’ve already mentioned the
current output looks terrible and doesn’t do any honour to FOP.
Even if we were able to improve the look, I don’t think the content
itself is suitable for a print output (think book). Converting every
page to a PDF document like can currently be done seems useless to me.
It would be more useful to aggregate a whole tab (for example, all the
documentation for version 1.0) into one document laid out like a book
with a TOC and everything.
However, doing this requires a significant amount of work that I don’t
know if anybody is prepared to do. And book documents are not the area
where FOP excels anyway, so having a really good-looking output may
involve too much manual tweaking.
And I’m not sure what that brings us in terms of testing if there is no
automatic way to check to outputs.
Therefore, I think the potential benefits of keeping the xdoc format
doesn’t justify the loss of convenience in updating the website.
> Again, I don't particularly see a problem that needs to be solved with
> switching to CMS. True, publishing FOP site docs is presently a little
> clunky, but I was able to figure it out (from scratch) in a few hours, and
> can reproduce it at will. Of course, if people.apache.org is really going
> away in 2012, then I agree something has to be done.
>
> If you have cycles to spend on FOP documentation, I would prefer you spend
> it on updating the site and wiki docs, which are, in many cases, quite out
> of date. However, how you use your time is your call. :)
I see that Clay has done some work in styling the experimental website
and it’s already looking better than what we currently have. Keep up the
good work Clay!
> Regards,
> G.
Vincent
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Chris Bowditch
<bo...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> My preference would be to find a way that allows us to move to CMS whilst
> keeping the xdoc source format. If it's not possible to keep the xdoc then
> I'm happy to accept moving to markdown or whatever works best.
>
+1
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
On 09/04/2012 15:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
Hi Glenn, Clay,
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Clay Leeds <the.webmaestro@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
> <ma...@skynav.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation.
>> That's a fairly large loss, but I don't know if that's a
>> showstopper, considering the benefits of having CMS-based
>> documentation.
>>
>>
>> What prevents you from using the existing xdoc format as source,
>> then using an XSLT to map to MD whence it can be imported into /
>> processed by the CMS. Or can you incorporate this translation
>> process into the CMS?
>
> Nothing prevents, but the goal is in this exercise is to minimize
> launch preparation time. ;-)
>
> If we continue to use xdoc, the CMS is skipped. It's certainly
> possible, but...
>
>
> Could you not use the "dynamic content" approach indicated by
> http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#dynamic-content? For example, use
> buildbot to run the forrest markdown plugin
> <http://forrest.apache.org/pluginDocs/plugins_0_80/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.Markdown/>. Or
> use an External Build <http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#external>?
>
> My main issue is switching our source format for FOP docs from XML to
> MD. I'm not comfortable with making this change. However, if my
> position is a minority among FOP committers, I will defer to the majority.
I too am reluctant to lose the current xdoc format as the current docs
are very easy to maintain.
>
> Again, I don't particularly see a problem that needs to be solved with
> switching to CMS. True, publishing FOP site docs is presently a little
> clunky, but I was able to figure it out (from scratch) in a few hours,
> and can reproduce it at will. Of course, if people.apache.org
> <http://people.apache.org> is really going away in 2012, then I agree
> something has to be done.
>
> If you have cycles to spend on FOP documentation, I would prefer you
> spend it on updating the site and wiki docs, which are, in many cases,
> quite out of date. However, how you use your time is your call. :)
We have to move off the current documentation publishing method that we
have. It is an Apache requirement to move to the CMS based approach by
the end of 2012. So it is urgent that someone on the team works on the
CMS migration right now. If Clay is unable to continue, then someone
else must take over. Hopefully Clay still has some time for this?
My preference would be to find a way that allows us to move to CMS
whilst keeping the xdoc source format. If it's not possible to keep the
xdoc then I'm happy to accept moving to markdown or whatever works best.
Clay, can you comment on Glenn's suggested approach to keep xdoc and
move to CMS? Will that be feasible?
Thanks,
Chris
>
> Regards,
> G.
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
>> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
>> benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
>>
>
> What prevents you from using the existing xdoc format as source, then
> using an XSLT to map to MD whence it can be imported into / processed by
> the CMS. Or can you incorporate this translation process into the CMS?
>
>
> Nothing prevents, but the goal is in this exercise is to minimize launch
> preparation time. ;-)
>
> If we continue to use xdoc, the CMS is skipped. It's certainly possible,
> but...
>
Could you not use the "dynamic content" approach indicated by
http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#dynamic-content? For example, use
buildbot to run the forrest markdown
plugin<http://forrest.apache.org/pluginDocs/plugins_0_80/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.Markdown/>.
Or
use an External Build <http://www.apache.org/dev/cms.html#external>?
My main issue is switching our source format for FOP docs from XML to MD.
I'm not comfortable with making this change. However, if my position is a
minority among FOP committers, I will defer to the majority.
Again, I don't particularly see a problem that needs to be solved with
switching to CMS. True, publishing FOP site docs is presently a little
clunky, but I was able to figure it out (from scratch) in a few hours, and
can reproduce it at will. Of course, if people.apache.org is really going
away in 2012, then I agree something has to be done.
If you have cycles to spend on FOP documentation, I would prefer you spend
it on updating the site and wiki docs, which are, in many cases, quite out
of date. However, how you use your time is your call. :)
Regards,
G.
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Clay Leeds <th...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
>
> What prevents you from using the existing xdoc format as source, then using an XSLT to map to MD whence it can be imported into / processed by the CMS. Or can you incorporate this translation process into the CMS?
Nothing prevents, but the goal is in this exercise is to minimize launch preparation time. ;-)
If we continue to use xdoc, the CMS is skipped. It's certainly possible, but...
Clay
Re: on changing fop documentation sources to markdown
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM, The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> So if you can find a way to transition to CMS as the doc management
>> system while still reusing the existing source formats and output formats
>> (modulo the above), then I have no objection to that.
>>
>
> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
> benefits of having CMS-based documentation.
>
What prevents you from using the existing xdoc format as source, then using
an XSLT to map to MD whence it can be imported into / processed by the CMS.
Or can you incorporate this translation process into the CMS?