Timo Kreuzer wrote:
- 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 There are still many outdated pages there and the main page is quite unclear.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?
- 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/
- 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