AltME groups homeHelpJoin REBOL3 world
  Find AltME posts   Help

Recent posts

Worlds:r4wpr3wp
AccessibilityAbout / FAQ
Member's loungeContact/FeedbackOther REBOL links
Membership:
member name

password

Remember?

Not a member? Please join
1-May 9:12 UTC
[0.05] 18.567k
r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

Join the discussions in the REBOL3 world...

[Make-doc] moving forward

older
newer		first
last
eFishAnt
11-Jan-2005
[135]
yes, agreed.
shadwolf
11-Jan-2005
[136x6]
so the problem you notice is due surely to a forgot implementation 
to enum2 and enum3

so need to add there the corresponding html flags for enum2 and enum3

well good night efishant ai'm burned here it's ששט oclock in the 
morning see you later ;)

2.5.1 need to be done ;)

7 oclock here :)

7:42 am
Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[142x2]
is it not possible to specify an output file in makedoc2 as an argument?

seems not
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[144x2]
code: My current make-doc-pro version supports including code with 
=include code <filename> and source-code will automatically indented 
to become example code.

tables: What's not working at the moment?
Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[146x2]
there seems to be some things missing (how to make bold and italic?) 
and I can't properly process multiple documents using makedoc2. the 
<html>, <body> and CSS code is only included in the first one, but 
not subsequent ones, if I 'load-only makedoc2 and follow the example 
shown in the source code.

=include doesn't work either.
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[148]
try MDP ;-)) it supports all of this.
Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[149x2]
I was migrating away from MDP so I could get more control over the 
output... seems it's not the case yet

and about tables in MDP, are they completed? I can't get them working
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[151x2]
What do you mean be "completed"?

Here is an exmaple:
Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[153]
I get one row of cells, if I follow the syntax in the example docs
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[154x2]
\table header
Header 1	|Header2	|Header3	||
Cell1		|Cell2		|Cell3		||
Lastline withouth linetermination
/table

If you omitt the 'header word, the first line won't be formatted 
as header for the table.
Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[156x4]
interesting

thanks

looks like I'll stick with MDP for a while yet. makedoc2 seems a 
bit fishy to me...

robert: the manual doesn't mention anything about || at the end of 
the line, which is why I couldn't get them working
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[160]
Really? I check it. Maybe MDP didn't emit the || characters.
Pekr
11-Jan-2005
[161]
... so what is the aim of make-doc group as posted on rebol.net? 
Will there be any unified version, abstracted, so various output 
formats plus separate styling (e.g. for html) in .css would be possible?
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[162]
That's the idea...
PeterWood
11-Jan-2005
[163]
According to the official project page on rebol.net, Robert is one 
of the members of the Make-Doc standardisation project. So he should 
know.
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[164]
Ok, I already updated my local docs need to publish them on the server 
as well.
Pekr
11-Jan-2005
[165x2]
well, so what will be initial make-doc from which we will evolve? 
Make-doc 1.0? 2.5? IIRC MDP evolved from MD 1.0?

the problem is I have various docs here and I don't like reformatting 
for myriads of version just to find out which look better ...
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[167]
Yes, the thing is to first agree on the markup to use. But we didn't 
make it to get the mentioned people to start working together towards 
one solution.
Pekr
11-Jan-2005
[168x2]
but - I would definitely vote for =include command - both for code 
and another text file, so you would be able to construct more complex 
docs from smaller parts ....

it showed really handy, when I used it ...
Sunanda
11-Jan-2005
[170]
To be usable as part of a CGI (for dynamic sites like REBOL.org), 
we'd either need to edit the script to remove* feature* like =include; 
or (better) Makedoc2 could have some refeinements to limit where 
it can read files from.

Without something like that, features like =include are a security 
risk -- they can read anything on the server.
Robert
11-Jan-2005
[171]
Ah, good point. I could handle this in MDP light_mode
Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[172]
I use =include to build my reference manuals and file lists inside 
other docs. It's quite essential that it works for me.
Geomol
11-Jan-2005
[173]
Robert, as you say, the mentioned people didn't get to develop the 
standard further, I think, Carl should have the information discussed 
here in this group. What do you think is the best way to contact 
Carl on this? With the feedback link on his blog?
PeterWood
11-Jan-2005
[174]
I've founfd the most reliable way to contact RT is via the feedback 
form at rebol.com. 

It doesn't work everytime though.
Pekr
11-Jan-2005
[175]
My opinion is, we shold leave make-doc, bloggger and other topics 
for now, to get Carl's attraction where we really need it ;-) RIF, 
plug-ins, RebServices, Rebin,  AGG beta  are waiting in priority 
list :-)
Sunanda
11-Jan-2005
[176]
Robert - MDP light_mode -- the version of make-doc-pro we use a REBOL.org 
has its =include code commented out.  It would be good if there were 
just one version,
shadwolf
11-Jan-2005
[177]
Yep working all with the same tool increase the easy knowledge.
eFishAnt
11-Jan-2005
[178]
and it is so nice to have such a cool document formatter which is 
so easy to use, understand, and improve upon.
Geomol
11-Jan-2005
[179]
I've made an initial specifikation of MakeDoc2. It can be found here: 
http://home.tiscali.dk/john.niclasen/nicom-md2-spec.html

The MakeDoc2 document for that specifikation can be found here: http://home.tiscali.dk/john.niclasen/nicom-md2-spec.txt
shadwolf
11-Jan-2005
[180]
i agreed with a cool editor like MDP-GUI that"s even cooler
Ashley
11-Jan-2005
[181]
Great spec Geomol (Specifikation -> Specification), that's the best 
doc I've seen on MakeDoc (any version) to date! ;) It got me thinking 
about a few things; firstly, which of the following is valid:

*One
*Two
*Three

or

* One
* Two
* Three


and, do we *really* need to insist upon a blank line between each 
MakeDoc element? Isn't 'newline more than adequate?


Also, it [the standard] should make it clear that the EOF tag "###" 
is *optional* - I don't want to be told that "you need it to make 
your document work".
DideC
11-Jan-2005
[182]
blank line is required if you manualy wrap your line at 70/80 char 
because your editor does not wrap by himself (Carl's intention, see 
makedoc2.5 header)
Geomol
11-Jan-2005
[183]
Thanks Ashley about the spelling. Changed!


About the bullet points, both ways seem to be valid. In the script, 
Carl use a rule called "text-block" to follow both types of bullets, 
defines and also comments. It's defined to have optional leading 
space (notice the comment):


text-block: [any space paragraph opt newline] ; ignore leading space, 
extra NL !???
eFishAnt
11-Jan-2005
[184]
a missing ### used to cause problems at the end of a make-doc generated 
document.  Haven't tested this version for that.
older
newer		first
last