Re: future of PEAR

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 11:25, Björn Schotte wrote: > * Michael Wallner wrote: > > Yes there is a standard: Docbook XML, or what are you thinking about > > with 'standard' in mind? A kind of templates can be found, too: > > http://cvs.php.net/cvs.php/peardoc/en/authoring > That's nothing appropriate. In some way, I agree with Björn. A main issue for PEAR developers and possibly documentators is the docbook and other documentation stuff. > > > Provide an "author's SDK", a .tgz or .ZIP with all kinds of > > > templates for classes, documentation, perhaps unit tests and a > > > skeleton PEAR package, some kind of automatic tools to verify if a > > > PEAR package complies to the standards (or complies to the > > > standards for PFC etc.). > > I think that's easier to say than to do. > Regarding the automatic verification I agree (I mentioned this > only because it was mentioned in another posting of somebody). > > When making docs - I think - it's the easiest way to look how others > > have done this before. > That's not appropriate. The easiest way (especially regarding > the recent PEAR2 discussion) is IMHO to provide access and tools > to the developer where he can easily start with. Name it whatever > you want - "A dummy's guide to PEAR", "PEAR SDK", whatever. A chapter in the documentation called perhaps "developers guide", which should concern all stuff concerning tips, tricks and mainly rules for PEAR developemnt (as there are cs at the moment). > > Questions about Docbook can be most probably best answered here: > > > > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/docbook/chapter/book/docbook.html > I know how to write docbook (I'm using XMetal for that), but that's not > the point here. Correct. It's a real torture to do docbook stuff, if you do not handle that in everyday work.