This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] DocBook XML toolchain modernization
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:26:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] DocBook XML toolchain modernization
- References: <51783EBC dot 30409 at etr-usa dot com> <20130425084305 dot GA29270 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <517F15AF dot 5080307 at etr-usa dot com> <20130430184703 dot GB6865 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <51801469 dot 9070606 at etr-usa dot com> <20130430190706 dot GC6865 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <51802510 dot 5000803 at etr-usa dot com> <20130430202737 dot GA1858 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <51803D76 dot 5010302 at etr-usa dot com> <20130501003154 dot GB3781 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
- Reply-to: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
On Apr 30 20:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:53:58PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >On 4/30/2013 14:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:09:52PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> >>> Embedding <html> within <html> is eeevil.
> >>
> >> faq.html is a pretty simple file and it seems to work. Are there any
> >> non-religious advantages to doing this?
> >
> >Conceivably browsers could stop tolerating it.
>
> Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. I don't think it's worth the
> effort and expense of duplicating Cygwin's CSS elsewhere but maybe
> there's a clever way to avoid the html nesting which wouldn't require
> that.
>
> >>> - Any comments about the other items in my FUTURE WORK section?
> >>> Unconditional green light, or do you want to approve them one by one?
> >>
> >> You have the right to change anything in the doc directory. Anything
> >> outside of that will require approval.
> >
> >The final removal of doctool requires replacing the DOCTOOL/SGML
> >comments in winsup/cygwin/{path,pinfo}.cc with Doxygen comments, and
> >folding most of the contents of winsup/cygwin/*.sgml into Doxygen
> >comments within the relevant source files.
>
> I'd rather just move this out of the code entirely. The user visible
> interfaces aren't going to change and we haven't made a habit of
> adding new DOCTOOL tags. I don't know who first thought that adding
> these was a good idea (it may predate my time on the project even
> though CVS insists that I added it with version 1.1) but, if Corinna
> agrees when she gets back, I'd like to just get rid of these.
I have not the faintest problem here, so I guess this means, just nuke
'em.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat