20 Sep
2007
20 Sep
'07
4:44 p.m.
Timo Kreuzer wrote:
1. Documenting windows functionality and technical
stuff
Andrew Greenwood's documentation is wiki based.
In fact, I was referring to this PDF he published:
http://stuff.silverblade.co.uk/reactos/windows_mm.pdf
But I also saw his Wiki documentation and yes, this can't just be committed
to SVN.
Maybe we should add a
tech-wiki or something where this stuff could go.
In my opinion, this is a great idea. But this technical Wiki should really
be separated from our current Wiki.
The easiest way to do this would be using pseudo directories like we already
do for separating the languages. ("De/", "Fr/", ...)
But first I'd recommend doing a cleanup of the existing Wiki.
There are still many outdated pages there and the main page is quite
unclear. In my opinion, a main page layout like at
http://www.linuxbios.org/index.php/Welcome_to_LinuxBIOS would be easier and
clearer. Now that we have image uploads enabled, adding graphics to the main
page is also feasable.
What do you think about this idea?
2. Source code documentation
So we should think about updating our doxygen [...]
I only think that doxygen output doesn't look that good.
I agree on both.
As we already had Doxygen working and it seems to have many features, I
think we should use it.
Although, its output does not look that good in the current state, it can be
customized. For example, just look how the Doxygen-generated documentation
looks at the KDE Website: http://developer.kde.org/documentation/library/
3. Program documentation
For program documentation, I would go for using CHM files. They are easy to
use, the help layout is consistent and viewing CHM files is a part that we
have to implement anyway somewhen.
But this also requires setting up a system for creating the documentation
files. If we need to reimplement DocBook and friends for Win32, this would
most-probably result in a huge amount of work, for which no one has time for
:-(
Regards,
Colin