Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:49:34 +0900 From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@geocities.co.jp> To: nik@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: doc@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: XML driver config file to replace LINT Message-ID: <200006271619.BAA25205@mail.geocities.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20000625195803.G470@kilt.nothing-going-on.org> References: <20000625195803.G470@kilt.nothing-going-on.org> <20000626115008.B462@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote in <20000625195803.G470@kilt.nothing-going-on.org>: > [ That schema is not set in stone, and certainly requires more work. In > particular, we probably need "lang" and "encoding" options on the > <comment> element, to support comments in more than one language. ] > > LINT would then become a skeletal file for things which don't fit this > sort of pattern, and the full LINT would be generated by a script which > parsed the above and the skeletal file to generate the full LINT. I think it is difficult to maintain the files because few editors can handle various languages/encodings at the same time. So, especially for translators, it is better that the .xml files are separated on a encoding/language basis. However, separated .xml files according to encoding/language like FreeBSD Handbook also cause another problem. If these files are used to create actual configuration files as not only doc or advisory purpose, translated .xml files but are not synchronized with English version can be more harmful. For instance, the out-dated translation couldn't create an appropriate LINT, so non-English readers cannot know modifications in the original file. Thus, configuration items that don't need to translate should be common, and others such as description field that can be translated should be separated, and it is better that latter separated .xml files (i.e. translated one) have a additional marker that indicates whether a file is synch'ed with the original version or not. Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote in <20000626115008.B462@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>: > The aim is that we have one file that describes the drivers -- this file > will be used by us to keep the documentation up to date, but it will also > be used by the system -- if the driver writer doesn't update this file then > the system won't know about their driver, and won't build it. They'll *have* > to keep it up to date. One file...why? A port in Ports Collection depends on some files not one file, but it works fine. I think we can maintain more easily several small files than big one file. -- | Hiroki Sato/HRS <hrs@geocities.co.jp> | | j7397067@ed.noda.sut.ac.jp(univ) | hrs@jp.FreeBSD.org(FreeBSD doc-jp Project) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006271619.BAA25205>