Tony Graham wrote:
If you pretended that the C function documented above was a XSLT
function and invented some simplified syntax on the fly (as I'm about to
do), you'd end up with something like:
------------------------------------------------------------
<x:doc xmlns:x="http://example.org/documentation";>
$res:: Result tree.
$fo_doc:: #FoDoc to which to write output.
$fo_tree:: Pointer to generated FO tree.
$area_tree:: Pointer to generated area tree.
$continue_after_error:: Whether to continue after a formatting error.
$debug_level:: What debugging output to generate.
$error:: Indication of any error that occurred.
Generates FO and area trees from $res result tree.
</x:doc>
------------------------------------------------------------
which is a lot easier to write, read, and update than putting DocBook or
DITA into the stylesheet and is still sufficiently structured that, with
some XSLT munging this time, you can get from there to DocBook or DITA
and from thence to HTML or to whatever.
I can see where you're going Tony, but aren't you just re-inventing
Tangle and weave? With the added complexity of your perl munging?
If you're using an XML editor, why not stick to XML for the
documentation. Seems simpler - and as Ken says, use as much (or
as little) docbook|Dita as you need.
The key is surely the pre-pass to pull documentation out and
then merge it (as you've done) with a shell to produce the finished
documentation? I guess that's why I'm frowning at the comment lines :-)
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--