r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Make-doc] moving forward

Henrik
11-Jan-2005
[150]
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.
Geomol
11-Jan-2005
[185]
The ### can be left out in the end, no problem here.
eFishAnt
11-Jan-2005
[186]
you will need it for sure if you do/args makedoc2.r at the end of 
the content.
Geomol
11-Jan-2005
[187]
yup
eFishAnt
11-Jan-2005
[188]
I verifed that old make-doc.r needed the ### to prevent missing the 
last line, but the new one doesn't...so Ashley can be happy now!
PeterWood
11-Jan-2005
[189]
Geomol: Would be possible to show the source for each example immediately 
before it? Perhaps you could treat the "source" as code so that it 
would stand out.
Geomol
11-Jan-2005
[190]
Yes Peter, a more complete spec should have that. For now you can 
see the source for the examples at the bottom of http://home.tiscali.dk/john.niclasen/nicom-md2-spec.txt
PeterWood
12-Jan-2005
[191]
Thanks
shadwolf
12-Jan-2005
[192]
tente$
Robert
12-Jan-2005
[193x3]
Sunanda, MDP already can be run in light_mode. Than it justs create 
a HTML output block but nothing more. You than just do whatevery 
you want with it. So there are no two versions. It's just an other 
operations mode.
=include How about an option to disable it? The CGI could insert 
something like =option include-off into the submitted text and than 
MDP will skip =inlcude commands.
While doing MDP for some time now, the details are the hard part. 
Try to use a definition word that has a - in it. Like:

 	manager-report - This is defined as...

Those things make it hard.
Geomol
12-Jan-2005
[196]
I've started work on a more complete document format based on MakeDoc2.

The specification so far can be seen here: http://home.tiscali.dk/john.niclasen/NicomDoc.html


I would like comments on whether this is a way to go and make it 
a new public format, or I just should keep it for myself to solve 
my own documentation needs. The specification is very compact in 
this version, so feel free to ask, if you have any questions.
Sunanda
12-Jan-2005
[197]
Robert =include disable. That would be good.

The same issue may in future affect other "dangerous" commands.  
Maybe have  a generic option to run make-doc-pro in a "sandbox". 
In the sandbox, it'd ignore =include and other dangerous commands.
Henrik
12-Jan-2005
[198]
anyone noticed a bug in table headers in makedoc2? there appears 
to be a newline before the text in the second column of a table, 
which makes it double height and the text is shifted down in the 
header
Geomol
12-Jan-2005
[199]
Yes, I see that too, when using Mozilla, but not with Opera. It's 
because a <b> (bold) is not finished with </b> in the second header 
cell. A bug in the script, it seems.