[REBOL] Re: RFC: make-doc-pro feature / glossary
From: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 7-Jun-2002 18:34
Am Freitag, 7. Juni 2002 11:31 schrieb Robert M. Muench:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
> > Volker Nitsch
> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:16 AM
> > To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> > Subject: [REBOL] Re: RFC: make-doc-pro feature / glossary
> >
> > for glossary: if you mark only for html, that would be visible only
> > there.
>
> Hi, that's just the idea for HTML output. For PDF output it would be
> possible to include an implicit chapter "glossary".
>
> > the benefit of make-doc dialect is, it is readble as text too.
>
> That's what it should be :-))
>
> > dialect?: something special nearly the same as the usual.
> > text?: you can't use smart hovering..
> > html?: text which knows there is a mouse.
> > make-doc?: a quick way to write good looking.
> >
> > for general words there is an include-option.
>
> So is this just the definition of the glossary words or do you want to
> include this into normal text? Will all words in the text show the glossary
> term?
>
> How about:
>
> \glossary
>
> :dialect - something special nearly the same as usual.
>
> =include general_words.r
> /glossary
>
i read a paragraph and think - hmm, is this a well known word?
and then describe it better. so i would like to have the special glossary
close. the "\glossary" needs a lot lines.
glossary?: an explanation of words.
paragraph?: a piece of related text.
I use make-doc primarily as text, with translation only occasianally.
it opens faster, i always change something and so on.
So the text-version should include everything.
in various files (readme, manual..), but each of them should be pleasant
readable.
\glossary
:glossary - an explanation of words.
:paragraph - a piece of related text.
/glossary
hmm?
> Robert
Volker
