Subject: RE: xsl self-documentation - ideas From: "Pawson, David" <DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:52:37 +0100 |
David Carlisle >OK so I'm completely confused as to the goals!!! My fault David. >I thought that this was describing a "weave" system that would extract >documentation from a documented source file. > >Ie would, in this case, presumably be an XSL stylesheet that >takes (just) >the stylesheet being documented as input, and outputs a documented >version of the stylesheet (eg as an html file with lots of >links between >the code and documentation) If we all understand the weave process, then fine, a 'weave' based solution will do the job. I was hoping to leave it more open than that, to encompass either a seperate process acting on the stylesheet-to-be-documented (which then becomes the source document), or an 'in-line' process, ~ almost debug / run-time trace type thingy. Are there benefits in either ease of implementation or clarity in either approach? >Both sorts of information are useful, but they are quite distinct >processes aren't they? Yes. Perhaps split the solution and look for opportunities in either one? Suggest the 'in-line' process is more useful when 'tracing', the 'weave' process when simply documenting the stylesheet 'statically'. Regards, DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: xsl self-documentation - ideas, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: xsl self-documentation - ideas, David Carlisle |
RE: xsl self-documentation on the f, Pawson, David | Date | RE: How to extract comments only?, Kay Michael |
Month |