1:10 p.m.
The article on xml.com,
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/03/03/sgmlwiki.html provoked me
into trying it out.
I didn't work with SGML for long, and this piece is just a little
on the esoteric side.
The basics are that the wiki text is regular, hence parsable.
SGML has a wierd set of characteristics such that "ldldldl" can
be interpreted as the tag named quote, the content ldldldl and
the end tag for quote. As I said, wierd.
Similarly,
newline---+ can be interpreted as a level one heading, etc.
Anyway, so far I've got a working version for the twiki syntax
but I'm wondering if its a worthwhile addition to the fedora docs
toolkit?
The only tool is a couple of text files, and an application
from James Clark. Its part of the sp toolkit
http://www.jclark.com/sp/
http://www.jclark.com/sp/sx.htm documents it.
The process is fairly simple.
1. Add two lines to the wiki content,
2. Parse it as an SGML file... using sx, which then produces
an XML file.
Its then two minutes to wrap it up in a proper article header
using XSLT and submit it.
It may lead to the need to keep wiki contents fairly straightforward,
e.g. inter page wiki links or WikiWord links as twiki calls them,
won't tranfer quite so easily.
If one of the people using the wiki could point out a fairly complex
page I'll try it out and report the results.
regards DaveP
<tag>Old enough to have used SGML :-)</tag>
4:06 p.m.
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 11:10, Dave Pawson wrote:
It may lead to the need to keep wiki contents fairly
straightforward,
e.g. inter page wiki links or WikiWord links as twiki calls them,
won't tranfer quite so easily.
That's a bummer. One of the great values of a WikiWiki is being able to
create an organic linked set of documents, without having to deal much
in markup esoterica. Otherwise, it's just a mildly fancier version of
structured text.
<tag>Old enough to have used SGML :-)</tag>
<aol>Word</aol>
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade .:. RHCE .:. Sr. Technical Writer .:. <name_title />
kwade at redhat.com www.redhat.com/docs <email_URL />
rhea.redhat.com <product id="WAF_CMS" />
www.redhat.com/solutions/security/SELinux.html <product id="SELinux" />
2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 <gpg_fingerprint />
3:38 a.m.
At 22:06 06/03/2004, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 11:10, Dave Pawson wrote:
> It may lead to the need to keep wiki contents fairly straightforward,
> e.g. inter page wiki links or WikiWord links as twiki calls them,
> won't tranfer quite so easily.
That's a bummer. One of the great values of a WikiWiki is being able to
create an organic linked set of documents, without having to deal much
in markup esoterica. Otherwise, it's just a mildly fancier version of
structured text.
If that was the deliverable fine.
If someone could write a sed script to markup those wikiwords
into something usable??
Given a set of documents which needed conversion I guess its possible,
but I'd guess that a suite of documents isn't ready at the same time?
Or am I wrong?
Either way, this is going to give us an 80% move in the right direction,
which is nicer than a kick in the teeth :-)
regards DaveP
8:46 a.m.
Dave Pawson wrote:
If that was the deliverable fine.
If someone could write a sed script to markup those wikiwords
into something usable??
Given a set of documents which needed conversion I guess its possible,
but I'd guess that a suite of documents isn't ready at the same time?
Or am I wrong?
a couple of us are working on a 'customizing anaconda' doc and we are
using a twiki format which sounds the same as wiki (format is consistent
anyway - therefore parseable).
feel free to run any tests you want using our docs as a base ...
the reason we chose a twiki was because we are all terrified of using
SGML and Emacs - and the twiki syntax is super easy to learn ... If
there was a tool to convert a finished wiki/twiki doc into docbook -
that would make the whole process SOOO much easier for the majority of
people - and we would have alot more docs produced as a nice bonus!
personally - i took a quick look at the fedora-doc tutorial but i bombed
out when it came to Emacs stuff (pretty early that means). I have never
touched emacs in my life and i am very happy editing with vi and gedit.
I don't want to learn emacs - i know it is powerful and efficient once
you get familiar with it - but i honestly don't have the time to get
familiar with it! I have already put in years of time learning vi
tricks. I also find the emacs interface outdated and counter-intuitive
(for a newbie anyway).
So after such a rant ... I would just like to say that it would be nice
to have something other than just emacs to choose from when creating
docs for the fedora-doc project. If a wiki/twiki converter is possible,
or something else (conglomerate?) then bring in on!!
--
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes ...
That way when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes!
11:41 a.m.
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 06:46, Paul Pianta wrote:
personally - i took a quick look at the fedora-doc tutorial but i
bombed
out when it came to Emacs stuff (pretty early that means). I have never
touched emacs in my life and i am very happy editing with vi and gedit.
I don't want to learn emacs - i know it is powerful and efficient once
you get familiar with it - but i honestly don't have the time to get
familiar with it! I have already put in years of time learning vi
tricks. I also find the emacs interface outdated and counter-intuitive
(for a newbie anyway).
So after such a rant ... I would just like to say that it would be nice
to have something other than just emacs to choose from when creating
docs for the fedora-doc project. If a wiki/twiki converter is possible,
or something else (conglomerate?) then bring in on!!
Just wanted to take a chance to reiterate a point I've made, lost in the
noise.
Because Norm Walsh is an Emacs user, and because of the power of pSGML
(and now nXML) modes, learning DocBook is very easy in Emacs. However
...
You do not have to use Emacs to author/edit DocBook.
You just need to conform to the DocBook standards. If you parse your
document against the DTD, then indenting should be consistent. I'm sure
there are keybindings and other DocBook tools for Vi. Perhaps someone
who prefers to use Vi could make a tutorial on using Vi for DocBook with
the Fedora docs project toolchain. :)
There is still the hurdle of learning DocBook. But considering that it
is basically the Linux documentation standard of the moment (i.e., what
the Linux Doc Project uses), this is a useful skill that will help with
more than Fedora documentation. It's easier to learn than HTML (because
there are no exceptions and funky browser specific rules). You have a
nicely working toolchain, so you don't have to overcome the "getting it
to render" problems.
There are several good DocBook authors who hang out on #fedora-docs on
irc.freenode.net, so please come by and ask for assistance while you are
learning DocBook.
Think about it this way -- it may be easier for you to learn and use
Python than C, but Python is not the language for writing kernel code.
To make submissions for the kernel, you need to use the right language
and authoring standards. What editor you use is your choice. As long
as the end result is to spec, you are fine. Our Doc Guide should
provide that spec for us. If you find that the spec is tied up with
Emacs specifics, please file a bugzilla report detailing what needs to
be untied. Tammy can assign that one to me, I'd be happy to make the
fixes. :)
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade .:. RHCE .:. Sr. Technical Writer .:. <name_title />
kwade at redhat.com www.redhat.com/docs <email_URL />
rhea.redhat.com <product id="WAF_CMS" />
www.redhat.com/solutions/security/SELinux.html <product id="SELinux" />
2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 <gpg_fingerprint />
12:24 p.m.
At 17:41 09/03/2004, Karsten Wade wrote:
Think about it this way -- it may be easier for you to learn and use
Python than C, but Python is not the language for writing kernel code.
But it might help with writing docbook.
I got this today on the 4suite list.
If you're a python fan?
Totally unknown product by me.
Quote.
We have created a tool which assists document creating tasks. The tool uses
4suite libraries.
If you are interested in this tool, you can test at [1] and get the source
code at cvs repository.
[1] http://tldp.docbook-es.org
HTH DaveP
7:02 p.m.
--- Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
You just need to conform to the DocBook standards. If you parse
your
document against the DTD, then indenting should be consistent. I'm sure
there are keybindings and other DocBook tools for Vi. Perhaps someone
who prefers to use Vi could make a tutorial on using Vi for DocBook with
the Fedora docs project toolchain. :)
I write DocBook with Vim, so I could probaby come up with something.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
12:20 p.m.
At 14:46 09/03/2004, Paul Pianta wrote:
a couple of us are working on a 'customizing anaconda' doc and
we are
using a twiki format which sounds the same as wiki (format is consistent
anyway - therefore parseable).
feel free to run any tests you want using our docs as a base ...
Thanks. You pick a couple of pages, I'll try running them.
the reason we chose a twiki was because we are all terrified of using
SGML
and Emacs - and the twiki syntax is super easy to learn ... If there was a
tool to convert a finished wiki/twiki doc into docbook - that would make
the whole process SOOO much easier for the majority of people - and we
would have alot more docs produced as a nice bonus!
Apart from tables and definition lists I finished the
conversion to xml today.
$ is some special character, hence no dd/dt processing
without work.
And yes, it is for twiki :-)
Pity you didn't pick another wiki variant, but c'est la vie.
personally - i took a quick look at the fedora-doc tutorial but i
bombed
out when it came to Emacs stuff (pretty early that means).
Good investment.. honest.
Painful, but high rewards in buying the O'Reilly emacs book.
I have never touched emacs in my life and i am very happy editing
with
vi and gedit. I don't want to learn emacs - i know it is powerful and
efficient once you get familiar with it - but i honestly don't have the
time to get familiar with it! I have already put in years of time
learning vi tricks. I also find the emacs interface outdated and
counter-intuitive (for a newbie anyway).
OK. vim has an xml mode I believe?
So after such a rant ... I would just like to say that it would be
nice to
have something other than just emacs to choose from when creating docs for
the fedora-doc project. If a wiki/twiki converter is possible, or
something else (conglomerate?) then bring in on!!
Gimme the test files, and I'll be back :-)
regards DaveP
4:28 p.m.
Dave Pawson wrote:
At 14:46 09/03/2004, Paul Pianta wrote:
> a couple of us are working on a 'customizing anaconda' doc and we are
> using a twiki format which sounds the same as wiki (format is
> consistent anyway - therefore parseable).
>
> feel free to run any tests you want using our docs as a base ...
Thanks. You pick a couple of pages, I'll try running them.
Oops forgot to mention that the twiki is at:
http://rau.homedns.org/twiki/bin/view/Anaconda/WebHome
you could sign up for an account and then have access to the pages - or
i can arrange to send them to you by email ...
let us know what you prefer ...
pantz
--
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes ...
That way when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes!
10:51 a.m.
At 22:28 09/03/2004, you wrote:
>Thanks. You pick a couple of pages, I'll try running them.
Oops forgot to mention that the twiki is at:
http://rau.homedns.org/twiki/bin/view/Anaconda/WebHome
you could sign up for an account and then have access to the pages - or i
can arrange to send them to you by email ...
let us know what you prefer ...
I now have it working end to end, with one minor sed needed.
I'd like you to choose two or three 'typical' (your definition)
pages, and mail them to me please.
I'll feed them back either to you or the list, whichever.
regards DaveP
7350
days inactive
7354
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dave Pawson -
Joshua Daniel Franklin -
Karsten Wade -
Paul Pianta