Re: Generated .xx.html files

[Kaloian Doganov]

Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> writes:

    Thanks for the summary, but I'm confused.  Is that annoying
    whitespace the only problem?  If so, it is clear that we should go
    for option 1.

OK, I'll write down this descision in the TODO file.  Also, I'm thinking
about rewording this entry:

    * Problems with the xhtml module: Ugly processing of comments, which
      leads even to errors like:

      <p><!-- timestamp start
      $Date: 2007/06/29 00:05:33 $
       timestamp end -->
      Updated:



      </p>


Currently we don't have errors, as far as I know.  (We've resolved the
timestamp issue above.)  I suggest moving this entry to Non-essential
section in this new form:

    * Somewhat ugly processing of comments, which leads to integration
      of adjacent comments and large areas of continious whitespace as a
      side effect:

      <p><!-- comment line 1
      comment line 2
       comment line 3 -->
      Translatable string:



      </p>

      It is questionable whether the processing of comments is ugly or
      the comments are placed in a ugly way in our source files in the
      first place. But we can still deal with the the whitespace side
      effect by postprocessing the generated article.xx.html files with
      a tool (some sed script, for example) that compresses continuous
      whitespace with multiple newlines into one or two newlines.

What do you think?

Yavor Doganov writes:

    I seem to recall that the new po4a functionality (that Nicolas
    implemented on our request) solved some of the problems, but
    introduced others -- the articles were not valid, and the scripts
    were not behaving as expected.

I don't remember.  May be you're recalling the state of the matters in
the moment before Nicolas suggested to use our own special tag to denote
non-translatable strings.