Browse thread
[Caml-list] CDK binary release
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Patrick M Doane <patrick@w...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] CDK binary release |
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:19:40AM +0200, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: > > > > The CDK documentation tool has still many problems, but it is > > currently the only tool which produces man pages for Ocaml modules and > > functions. Moreover, LaTeX is not used by all Ocaml users (some are > > using Windows and its wonderful editors). For now, I think the best > > language is a specific language, for example, a subset of HTML. > > What about sgml, most project use that, and they can then transform it in many > different format afterward. I agree. I posted recently about any experiences users have with SGML documentation linked with Ocaml programs so this seems to be coming up at a good time. I would like to have a good framework in place for writing the documentation for FORT and would prefer an SGML approach. > Also if windows people don't use latex (there is a tex suite for windows > available anyway), you just need to transform the latex files into something > they can use, like html, with one of the latex2html tools available (hevea for > example). > > Releasing html documentation only is not a nice thing. Good points again. One advantage worth mentioning about sgml/xml representation of the documentation is that transformations will be much easier to implement than if the native output format is latex. Patrick ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr