Re: Docmentation/FAQs

[Jason Rodrigues <..hidden..>]

On Thursday 21 September 2006 16:55, Chris Travers wrote:
> 1)  Support by good graphical editors without compromising ability to
> edit the files easily in a text editor or having the graphical editors
> play havoc with revision control.  I.e. I am not inclined to accept
> huge patches just because a graphical editor decided to reformat the
> text (this also makes editorial review/control far harder when
> changing three lines means re-importing the whole document).

I have yet to see a graphical editor that doesn't lay waste to a hand-edited 
source file.  This rules out OO.o, the content.xml file inside the odt file 
is re-written @ every save, trashing any whitespace.  (unless there's a 
different solution for OO.o revision tracking that meshes with SVN  -- they 
may be working on this already ...)

> 2)  Having a good, easily readible format that doesn't require an
> editor to make sense of or change.
>
> 3)  Maintaining the presentation logic entirely separately from the
> content.

My vote would be either for HTML with a strict set of guidelines for 
formatting submissions, and a well maintained .css file, or a DocBook XML 
file.

Jason