Re: Converting HTML to Docbook

Yeah - i dont really like it that much - which is why phpdoc @stuff would be a bit better.. -- perhaps the introduction/summary/section stuff should be outside the class anyway.. I dont think it would be as bad when it gets down to the method documentation.. - although i'll see what happens.. as far as I can see 1) if it works - it will save alot of effort 2) if it doesnt - (a) we know not to try it again, (b) there's some code to build on if someone can come up with a better idea regards alan Martin Jansen wrote:

On Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:1327PM +0800, Alan Knowles wrote:

/* * @Docbook * PACKAGESECTION: packages.php.codedoc

* PAGE:           INDEX
* This chapter expains how to use the phpcodedoc tool which can generate lxr type html and docbook

* output from comments embedded in class files *

* PAGE:        Introduction

* PAGESUMMARY: what is PHP_CodeDoc all about? *

* SECTION:     Introduction

* * PHP_CodeDoc was written for a number of reasons * LIST: * - To make use of the php tokenizer module to generate documentation * - To produce documentation that showed the source code as well as the notes * - Because I saw the ruby class documentation, and thought it looked very clear.. * ENDLIST:

Honestly, don't you think that this makes the API documentation very hard to read? Most time when debugging/developing code I don't use the nice HTML output of PHPDoc but the inline comments in the PHP code to understand how the code works. Your new style IMO makes it a magnitude harder to read and understand the documentation ;-).