Re: Status of PHP-GTK

Steph wrote: > We always did, always will, because DocBook doesn't actually stretch to > our needs. I can't believe we're the only people on the entire www with > a need to describe event-driven objects, but there you go... Seems odd, I swear gtk uses docbook don't they? But yes... why no support... > 'new' as in 'still under development' I assume, since Philip's been > fairly quiet about it :) Ah, it's likely to be a gsoc project this year as well (wahoo), but it is in CVS and he's been quiet because it's not "ready" yet. > Livedocs took a fair amount of hacking to work with phpgtkdoc.dtd. I > think phd will be the same, because it relies on pure DocBook (which is > relatively new for phpdoc also). Agreed - however the guys volunteering and working on the new stuff also worked on PhD/phpdoc stuff - this is a big plus ;) And it also means finding out what PhD doesn't do and needs to do is easier (and we have people to annoy about it) The amount of work needed just to find > out whether that's so is scary, since it means rewriting the php-gtk doc > scripts and dtd all over again and either search/replacing a bunch of > tags throughout the manual source, or else generating from scratch. > Upgrading is also likely to break Christian's nice hierarchy generation > (I don't know how he even did that in the first place). Sadly enough, this is true. > I'd be inclined to branch php-gtk-doc now and adapt the current > serverside scripts to use that branch while work's in progress on > upgrading to v5 in HEAD. In that case, it'd be best to get the sysadmin > to hit on everything at the same time rather than pester him twice over. Sounds good. Thanks, Elizabeth