Re: [avrdude-dev] Documentation build tools requirements - many complaints

[E. Weddington]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> As E. Weddington wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Oh, heck, it looks like it's been under our noses after all:
> > OpenOffice.org <http://www.zzoss.com/projects/oowdbk/>
> >    
>
> Hmm, I'm not particular fond of OO.o (or that kind of tools in
> general), but perhaps it's really an idea.  After all, OO.o operates
> as an XML editor by default.  As long as it doesn't poison the
> generated docbook files with hard offsets etc. (as it does for the
> generated OO.o XML documents), it might work.
>
> One thing I hope can't be arranged for is a decent indenting.  OO.o
> XML documents itself aren't indented at all, everything is there
> within a single line. :-/  (Apart from that, the ability to edit
> their XML code directly in Emacs has already been quite helpful to
> me a number of times.)
>
>  
I was just taking a look, you can save the files as 
"DocBook(simplified)". I'm not sure what "simplification" they offer; 
though I can understand if this feature is just not complete yet. In 
theory, we should be able to save the DocBook formatted file in CVS, 
then retrieve it, edit it in OO.o, and store it back to CVS. OO.o also 
can write out a PDF too. We can use xmlto to convert to man page 
(hopefully, I have no idea about formatting issues). The only missing 
piece is a scripted DocBook->PDF conversion for Windows (Cygwin). It can 
be done manually I suppose and a .pdf put up in download area, but I 
admit, it's not the cleanest solution.

And yes, the DocBook format it produces, from what I can tell, is on a 
single line. But I was told (by Simon Steele, author of PN) that the XML 
format, technically should all be on a single "line". So that may just 
be part of the format we have to live with.

Eric