On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 09:27 +0200, Mathieu Lacage wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:33 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > I think the question is whether advantages of the use of custom > > tools ... whether specialized or extensions to gtk-doc ... is worth the > > hassle of maintaining those tools, compared to just writing straight-up > > docbook. Sure, it's painful to write: > > > > <link linkend="pango-fc-font-lock-face"><function>pango_fc_font_lock_face()</function></link> > > > I think the original idea behind this was that I wanted to be able to > generate nice-looking cross-refs for both html and pdf output. That way, > I could put the intelligence required to generate the right linkends > depending on the type of output tool. The above expresses the right cross reference information in docbook. Nothing more is necessary.... the docbook => html and docbook => pdf stylesheets can do the rest. > I have not had time to really attempt to generate nice pdf output with > cross refs though. > > > > > > But if the tutorial is mostly already written, then it can be done automated > > once and then just updated from there. > > yes. > > > > > Another possibility would be to extend gtk-doc.dtd and gtk-doc.xsl to allow > > > > <gtkdocfunction function="pango_fc_lock_face"/> > > > > Or maybe > > > > <gtkdoclink target="#PangoFcFont"/> > > > > and then expand that out in the xsl. Though it means that we no longer have > > standard docbook that can be processed by standard docbook tools. And doing > > the function->id conversion in xsl might be hard. > > I have no idea how hard which is why I suggested to just hack it with > perl code. I think hacking it with Perl code is a very bad idea. The gtk-doc build process is complicated enough as is. Adding another layer is going to result in something very fragile. While extending gtk-doc might be possible, I really think that keeping it simple is the right thing to do. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part