Re: QA category

Christian Weiske wrote: > Hello all, > >> Doesnt this piece of code for the first time validate >> the usefulness of docbook atleast to some extend? >> I did not look at the code, but I assume >> he is using some of the markup of docbook in the parsing. > > I do think we should continue using docbook. Docbook is the standard way to document things, > and I have seen and done very nice things with documents in this format. > > Lukas is right, having the docs as docbook helped here very much. Basically I do load the XML > document via DOMXML and do some XPath queries on it. With a wiki or some other unstructured > document, this would not be possible at all. > Since I needed to query the package xmls and do some advanced stuff, I needed to use php here. > The PHP-Gtk2 documentation coverage script is plain XSLT, without using any php or other programming > language. You can do very wonderful things with docbook. > > > So I will rename the package to PEAR_QA_Peardoc_Coverage and add a package in the PEAR > category. Hi, The package name is fine, but I would rather see a new "pearweb" category, and file all of these pear.php.net-specific things under it. We can create a QA subcategory, which would make sense. Greg