I found a new wordprocessing program, which is cross-platform!!! I think it's worth a try, isn't it?
http://www.abisource.com
Also we have to decide, which format we are using!!! But first of all Ton should make something like a DocStaff!

Bye...
Flo
Moderators: jesterKing, stiv
That's exactly what I want to say!When you have to write LOTS of stuff and you are MANY you need to work on plain text file in some veeery well documented format.
There is a long thread here about that (YOU started it ).
Hopefully that's not complicated!Plain text because merging various contributors must be automatized (A Python/PERL /whathever script/suite of scripts or even a CVS system
I know that! I only wanted to have a look!Abi Word looks cool but:
1 - Who has tested it, of us?
Is that Xemacs cross platform? So everybody can use it?2 - Is it a strong and established software we can rely for a medium-long period on? Is it worth learning? If XML is chosen I would use my Xemacs, which kick a*s every other WordPro and be happy, and you can use any XML writing program and be happy.
I don't know that, too!I pose these questions (latter two) because browsing the site I havent found the answers...
FWIW, I have used Abiword before.S68 wrote:Cool program, happy to see so many initiatives around doc writing
When you have to write LOTS of stuff and you are MANY you need to work on plain text file in some veeery well documented format.
There is a long thread here about that (YOU started it).
Plain text because merging various contributors must be automatized (A Python/PERL/whathever script/suite of scripts or even a CVS system
Very well documented because most probably that script must be hacked by us
A choiche of a Tag oriented format is the best, IMHO, and XML is a pretty good one. Strong points are that you write in a format and you have plenty of translators, or you can write your own, to have nicely formatteed results.
Abi Word looks cool but:
1 - Who has tested it, of us?
I believe Abiword's "native" format is XML (might be compressed with tar/gz or both, not sure).2 - Is it a strong and established software we can rely for a medium-long period on? Is it worth learning? If XML is chosen I would use my Xemacs, which kick a*s every other WordPro and be happy, and you can use any XML writing program and be happy.
It mimics the MS Word UI, not sure if it is actually suitable for a large scale project, since I have never used it for that. I believe you can save your document as LaTeX from Abiword.3 - Is it suitable for a large multi-writer project (if it is a Word clone the answer is NO, word is unsuitable even foe a large single person project. Both the books I wrote were done in LaTeX).
Hope that helps,I pose these questions (latter two) because browsing the site I havent found the answers...
Stefano
Abiword is a well established and very active Free Software project so its not going to just disappear. Its handling of DocBook however leaves a lot to be desired. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by having a WYSIWIG editor like Abiword and make it use something like DocBook as an Abiword "Style." Here's a pretty good summary of DocBook in Abiword:S68 wrote:Abi Word looks cool but:
1 - Who has tested it, of us?
2 - Is it a strong and established software we can rely for a medium-long period on? Is it worth learning? If XML is chosen I would use my Xemacs, which kick a*s every other WordPro and be happy, and you can use any XML writing program and be happy.
3 - Is it suitable for a large multi-writer project (if it is a Word clone the answer is NO, word is unsuitable even foe a large single person project. Both the books I wrote were done in LaTeX).
I pose these questions (latter two) because browsing the site I havent found the answers...
EMACS (can't recall the full meaning of the acronym) is UNIX nativedroddl wrote:Heyho...
Is that Xemacs cross platform? So everybody can use it?
Sure it does... my point stands in "we must define the framework" and everyone can contribute in that framework, and the look and feel of the docs must be given by the framework, not by the authors, with automatic formatting styles.Heffel wrote: Hope that helps,
Not exactly. The GNU project started in 1984 with the goal to build a portable operating system. Unix was a model that was considered to copy because of its then-known portability (that is still a nice fact today). The goal was obviously reached, the operating system not only runs on almost all possible hardware that can count with zeroes and ones, but also entirely or in parts on top of other operating systems. (See Cygwin, Debian GNU/*BSD, and Debian GNU/Hurd (using the GNU project's own kernel).)S68 wrote:EMACS (can't recall the full meaning of the acronym) is UNIX nativedroddl wrote:Heyho...
Is that Xemacs cross platform? So everybody can use it?
From a beginner's perspective, GNU Emacs (which is the original) and XEmacs (which is a fork) feel almost the same. (They have some different defaults, but almost the same capabilities.) So all you said also applies to GNU Emacs (which I prefer mainly because I didn't look at XEmacs for too long, so I can't say much about XEmacs).S68 wrote:Xemacs is the incredibly resource consuming fully full of widgest X11 version of emacs.
Xemacs is one of those gigantic program which were GNU since the Beginning of the GNUs, It is a full fledged TEXT editor with coloured syntax, parent matching, but, most important, its own scripting languages which allows for a lot of things.
In the next few days, I hope I can find some time to write a proposal on what I believe would be an optimal environment (framework) for the blender.org documentation effort(s). The only thing I'm missing for this are some terms that might be needed to convey precisely what's what in the proposal, but I think I'll be able to get it somewhat understandable. I'll then post a message in the forum for announcing and (important!) discussing. I hope that nobody felt too attacked by me in the other thread and like to welcome everybody to participate when I have it.S68 wrote:Sure it does... my point stands in "we must define the framework" and everyone can contribute in that framework, and the look and feel of the docs must be given by the framework, not by the authors, with automatic formatting styles.
LaTeX of course allows for this. XML too, but XML is so abstract that we musd decide which flavour we use...
Um, just wondering. If someone (er... like me) were to get a bug, and write a section of information for the document system. Could we just hand it over to one of the people from the volunteer group, to stick into the document? I would think some people who might be willing to write up and explanation or information for the documentation, might not want to have to deal with another program to learn in order to submit it.ton wrote:I'm collecting mails from volunteers now. After this weekend I'll assemble the teams, and contact everyone.