Re: [glob2-devel] Twiki XML XSL plugins

[martin . voelkle]

> > Maybe it comes from the xslt stylesheet (where can I find an other one)? 
> > Login to ysagoon.com (user: ysagoon, pass: sex) and try to figure it out.
> 
> I don't know at all how docbook works (ie what stilesheet it needs). And I'm
> really new to xsl, and haven't tried it yet. Thus I can't help you for that,
> sorry.

It just need some http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&q=docbook+html+xsl or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&q=docbook+html+xslt stuff.

> I spoke with NCT today, and he said that for more consequent documentation
> work (such as the xml manual) it's really pleasant to have a fully featured
> text editor (eg vim). Thus, he will probably go on working on the cvs
> documentation and not use a web edit for xml documentation. And he also said
> that if people write stuff, he's willing to integrate it into the cvs tree.
> So is it really needed to put the xml doc into a wiki system? The problem is
> always the same, will people *really* contribute more if the doc is in a
> wiki, or isn't it worth all the effort?
> 
> What we can also do is a really complete step by step explaination of how to
> install on windoz, macosX and linux all that's needed to access to the
> savannah cvs. That little doc would be put together in the current twiki and
> could also be useful to access and contribute to the source code.

We face here one of the wiki problems when using for existing projects: people 
use it for its user-friendlyness but it generates duplicate outdated 
information. We should either have good human sychronizers between wiki and 
cvs or integrate wiki with the cvs or split what should be in the wiki and 
what should be in the cvs. I am more for the 2nd option, which requires more 
setup work than the others but is aflex la fois flexible and easy to maintain.

> The other possibility is to check if it's possible to access and commit to
> the cvs from php, and how to easily display xml-xsl with php. Then integrate
> all that into olaf. Like that people can use olaf or cvs to access to the
> documentation. But that would probably need quite a lot of work, and it's
> probably more interesting to invest that time into more productive stuff.

I've read a bit of comparison between cgi and other web server scripting 
issues and thought that the best way might be to redesign cgi to make use of 
rpc(faster than fork/exec), which might take a while to develop. The best 
solution might be to implement it on top of l4, which might make it impossible 
to host (do you know many l4 based hosts which support this not-yet-designed 
feature?).

I am currently looking for some php cvs modules, but the only thing I find are 
cvs repositories of php modules... Hopefully channel 18 is helping me...

Good night,

Martin