Re: [macports-mgr] Re: MacPorts Guide infrastructure requirements
On Jul 11, 2007, at 3:38 AM, markd@macports.org wrote:
I started fairly clean because I think the logical structure and organization of the old guide is fundamentally flawed. So I'm of the opinion that we should not merge new stuff into the old guide, and I'm taking the tack of merging the old stuff into a new guide. However, I just went with the DocBook type "article" and a single file since that was familiar to me and fastest for me. So I don't favor merging new into old, but yet I don't know if I should convert my article to a "book" and/or break it up into multiple files along major section. The latter I suspect yes; the former I don't know. Can anyone give advice here?
BTW, I just reorganized the doc structure. Take a look at the TOC. I like it better now; what do others think? Look past the ugly colors. :)
http://homepage.mac.com/duling/macports/guide.html
Mark
Already replied to most of these comments as a PS in my reply to your last mail to me (rsync replicating servers setup), but I'll do here briefly too to emphasize: -) totally love the TOC sidebar, definitely a keeper! -) I believe the source should be split in multiple xml files, easier to manage like that in my opinion; -) article, book... don't know much about dockbook myself, I have to admit, but definitely do enjoy having each chapter in a single html page; is that doable in article mode (while retaining the sidebar in each chapter)? -) don't merge new into old, lets populate new and move it in place once it's ready or close to ready, moving the source docs around as needed and (finally, removing the old!); -) lets set up automated regen in coordination with both Daniel, now, and Kevin on MacOSForge servers later on once he has the server side support finished. Regards,... -jmpp
Juan Manuel Palacios <jmpp@macports.org> on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 5:24 PM -0800 wrote:
Already replied to most of these comments as a PS in my reply to your last mail to me (rsync replicating servers setup), but I'll do here briefly too to emphasize:
-) totally love the TOC sidebar, definitely a keeper! -) I believe the source should be split in multiple xml files, easier to manage like that in my opinion; -) article, book... don't know much about dockbook myself, I have to admit, but definitely do enjoy having each chapter in a single html page; is that doable in article mode (while retaining the sidebar in each chapter)?
The sidebar TOC should look identical even if the xml is split into pieces and/or converted to doctype "book"; I've just not done books before, though it should be easy enough. Not sure yet whether article of book is best but I'll look into it. As I mentioned, I'm still tweaking with the document structure, but I'm getting closer to being satisfied on it. When I am I'll ask for others to comment on that for some "peer review", if they don't comment before. Then I agree it should be split along sections (article) or chapters (book).
-) don't merge new into old, lets populate new and move it in place once it's ready or close to ready, moving the source docs around as needed and (finally, removing the old!); -) lets set up automated regen in coordination with both Daniel, now, and Kevin on MacOSForge servers later on once he has the server side support finished.
Yeah sounds good. Mark
On 17 Jul, 2007, at 12:08, markd@macports.org wrote:
The sidebar TOC should look identical even if the xml is split into pieces and/or converted to doctype "book"; I've just not done books before, though it should be easy enough. Not sure yet whether article of book is best but I'll look into it. As I mentioned, I'm still tweaking with the document structure, but I'm getting closer to being satisfied on it. When I am I'll ask for others to comment on that for some "peer review", if they don't comment before. Then I agree it should be split along sections (article) or chapters (book).
One minor comment: the height of the sidebar (610px) is greater than the height I have available to it on my monitor (about 580px), so it gets clipped off. It would be great if it could be set to scale with the height of the window, but from what I know of CSS, that would be very hard to do. I think setting it to 550px would accomodate any monitor (minus dock, menu bar, and window decorations) in use these days. Chris
Chris Pickel <sfiera@macports.org> on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM -0800 wrote:
One minor comment: the height of the sidebar (610px) is greater than the height I have available to it on my monitor (about 580px), so it gets clipped off. It would be great if it could be set to scale with the height of the window, but from what I know of CSS, that would be very hard to do. I think setting it to 550px would accomodate any monitor (minus dock, menu bar, and window decorations) in use these days.
Chris, I agree it was too tall. Actually it can scale with the window. I set it to "height: 80%", which is supposed to be 80% of window height I think. See how you like that. I can adjust the percentage up or down. Mark
Le 07-07-17 à 13:11, markd@macports.org a écrit :
Chris Pickel <sfiera@macports.org> on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM -0800 wrote:
One minor comment: the height of the sidebar (610px) is greater than the height I have available to it on my monitor (about 580px), so it gets clipped off. It would be great if it could be set to scale with the height of the window, but from what I know of CSS, that would be very hard to do. I think setting it to 550px would accomodate any monitor (minus dock, menu bar, and window decorations) in use these days.
Chris,
I agree it was too tall. Actually it can scale with the window. I set it to "height: 80%", which is supposed to be 80% of window height I think. See how you like that. I can adjust the percentage up or down.
Why not 95 or even 100 % ? Because it is always best to have the whole menu without scrolling. yves
I agree it was too tall. Actually it can scale with the window. I set it to "height: 80%", which is supposed to be 80% of window height I think. See how you like that. I can adjust the percentage up or down.
Why not 95 or even 100 % ? Because it is always best to have the whole menu without scrolling.
Good point. I set it to 96% because I thought it looks slightly better than 100% because it puts a slight gap at the bottom. See how that looks. Mark
participants (4)
-
Chris Pickel
-
Juan Manuel Palacios
-
markd＠macports.org
-
Yves de Champlain