Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

RFC: make-doc-pro feature / glossary

 [1/8] from: robert::muench::robertmuench::de at: 5-Jun-2002 14:55


Hi, I'm thinking about adding a glossary function to MDP. There are several possibilities to implement such a function. The goal is that glossary words will display the glossary description of the mouse is moved over the word. I want to use the <DFN> HTML tag for this. I'm not sure which version is most pratical for the user: 1. Explicit marking the words with ?gloassary-word? Result: For all words marked with ? make-doc-pro would make a look up in a text file and include the definition into the output. Advantages: - Esay to implement - Simple usage - User can decide where to include glossary output and where not Disadvantages: - If you want the glossary term for all the same words, you have to wrap them all in ? sequence. 2. Explicit marking of words with ?glossary-word? once Result: Same as 1. but now make-doc-pro would include the glossary definition for all appearances of the word. Advantages: - User only has to mark the word once in a file. Disadvantages: - If the glossary text is long, it will be included several times into the HTML output. (Is there a trick to reference such text-blocks in HTML?) 3. Explicit marking of all words found in glossary Result: make-doc-pro uses the glossary file and just includes the description for all words that are found in the glossary. Advantages: - No markup needed for the user. - Can simple be turned on off. Disadvantages: - Same as 2. What do you think? Which version is most useful for you? Do you have any other ideas how to handle such a functionality? Robert

 [2/8] from: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 6-Jun-2002 0:16


Hi Robert for glossary: if you mark only for html, that would be visible only there=2E the benefit of make-doc dialect is, it is readble as text too. so how about this: 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. -volker Am Mittwoch, 5. Juni 2002 14:55 schrieb Robert M. Muench:

 [3/8] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 7-Jun-2002 11:31


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> 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 Robert

 [4/8] 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 23>>
> =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

 [5/8] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 8-Jun-2002 13:18


Sorry if this idea came and went already, but what about a simple glossary section? ===Glossary --Gregg

 [6/8] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 10-Jun-2002 10:32


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> section? > ===Glossary
Hi, that could be on of the results after translation. For HTML I like to move my mouse over a word and see the glossary term. For PDF I would like to have a ===Glossary section added and a hint for terms being defined in the glossary. Robert

 [7/8] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 10-Jun-2002 10:32


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> glossary?: an explanation of words. > paragraph?: a piece of related text.
So your usage pattern is to put the glossary? stuff somewhere in the script and don't collect it in a special place? That makes sense as it follows the old C++ rule "declare just before first usage". I like it this way.
> I use make-doc primarily as text, with translation only occasianally.
Really? Just for yourself or if you communicate with others too?
> it opens faster, i always change something and so on.
I know, with IOS I thought about an desktop extension wherer you can edit a MDP file and get the translation automatically synced to all users. The source-code could only be on your system, or on the user's system that need to change the text as well. Robert

 [8/8] from: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 10-Jun-2002 14:40


Am Montag, 10. Juni 2002 10:32 schrieb Robert M. Muench:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
<<quoted lines omitted: 11>>
> and don't collect it in a special place? That makes sense as it follows the > old C++ rule "declare just before first usage". I like it this way.
it could save clicks, and verifying which words have/need definitions.
> > I use make-doc primarily as text, with translation only occasianally. > > Really? Just for yourself or if you communicate with others too? >
hmm.. i am not communication that much. when, mostly email, which is text. here i am starting marking headlines with "===" :) also there are some RT-documents, partly text, partly html. if carefull written, i can read text better.
> > it opens faster, i always change something and so on. > > I know, with IOS I thought about an desktop extension wherer you can edit a > MDP file and get the translation automatically synced to all users. The > source-code could only be on your system, or on the user's system that need > to change the text as well. Robert
i would publish text too. so its possible to write comments directly into the document. then ios works similar to a wikki. another point is, i am using an editor-extension which collects "==="-lines in a text-list and finds them in editor on click. similar to an html-index-frame, but with zero writing-effort. suddenly using large text is pretty quick. (unfortunally standalone, not plugged into desktop-editor) so to me using text not only as source is an valid option. greetings Volker

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted