[Fwd: Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] DebugDoclet >> XmlDoclet]

[Julian Scheid]

Again forgot to Reply All...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] DebugDoclet >> XmlDoclet
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 00:21:56 +0100
From: Julian Scheid <address@hidden>
To: Nic Ferrier <address@hidden>
References: <address@hidden> <address@hidden>

Nic wrote:
> Can you please make sure that whatever you do is completly GNU? We
> don't want to replace a Sun dependancy with a dependancy on something
> else.

Good point. I'm currently using Apaches' Xalan for XSLT processing,
that's not completely GNU but its preferrable to Sun software isn't
it?

On one hand we should keep our work free of dependencies on non-free
software. On the other, sticking to 'old' stuff instead of using
current technology may be a bad decision as well.

In every case, I assume there are GPLed XSLT processors (or there will
be in near future) so I don't think this is really a problem.

My XSLT code currently relies on Xalan because it needs some
special functionality for writing output to several files but this
dependency is very local and can be replaced easily.

Your opinion Alex?

> I think it would be good if gjdoc came with a default doclet.

Yes, but it wouldn't be too much effort either for a potential
user to install both gjdoc and some xmldoclet. I'd rather prefer
to have it separated.

> - don't bother with frames.
> - keep to HTML 2.0

I see your point, but I think when we have a fully-featured
doclet that uses frames and HTML4+CSS+whatever, it's not a
big deal to downgrade this. To be exact, I _know_ that it's
no problem to downgrade the XSLT sheet so that it delivers
to any minimal browser.

Julian