Possible Documentation and help solutions - DITA

[Paul Foxworthy]

Sharan-F wrote

Confluence is the Apache approved tools for wiki so we still need to work within this constraint for now. In any case – I think we firstly need to do some review of the all the documentation we have before we start structuring it.

Hi Sharan,

There is a free tool to import DocBook into Confluence : https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/org.jboss.labs.confluence.plugin.docbook_import

There's also a commercial one to go in the other direction: https://www.k15t.com/software/scroll-docbook-exporter/overview . *If* we wanted to use the wiki as a place to develop help, we could ask the vendor if they were willing to donate their product to an open source project.

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

[taher]

Hi Paul,

I am starting to use DITA and really like it. But I can see your point regarding people being put off. It might be in a sense a bit too powerful for OFBiz and it takes a while to wrap your head around the concepts like maps, topics, etc ... I'm on the fence, maybe leaning slightly towards keeping DocBook, but if a PoC shows how DITA can shine, then why not!

Taher Alkhateeb

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Foxworthy" <[hidden email] Pau>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2015 9:10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Possible Documentation and help solutions - DITA

Sharan-F wrote
> I'm a bit unclear about what you are suggesting.
>
> * Is it about replacing the Docbook implementation we currently have
> within OFBiz with something else (e.g Asciidoc)?
> * Is it about extracting the Docbook content from what we currently
> have in OFBiz and then generating it into another format that we
> could possibly re-introduce?
> * Or is it something else?

Hi Sharan,

My suggestion is much more modest than that. I think there's no need to
replace existing DocBook content, or to totally change the DocBook process
we have.

All I am suggesting is that people consider AsciiDoc as a first step when
authoring help information. If they prefer to work with DocBook directly,
fine. There are tools to transform AsciDoc into DocBook XML, such as
AsciiDoctor (http://asciidoctor.org/), so in effect (correctly written)
AsciiDoc *is* DocBook.

I'll repeat the reasons why I like AsciiDoc. It's more human-readable than
XML. You can write your documentation in any text editor. Both of these are
important. In contrast, requiring XML and some more specialised tool is a
barrier to entry, so less people could and would participate in documenting
OFBiz.

When I last looked into DITA quite a few years ago, it seemed to be a
heavyweight thing that only made sense if you wanted multiple destinations
and were willing to invest in proprietary tools like Framemaker, Oxygen or
Arbortext. I am perfectly willing to believe that DITA is more "complete"
than DocBook, and would allow "better" documentation, if only anyone was
willing to invest the time, trouble and money to be able to use it.

I'm pleased to hear there's now DITA support for Eclipse. Eclipse is not my
favourite IDE, but I could be persuaded to use it. How much better would it
be to say to potential contributors that they can use their favourite IDE or
text editor, whatever that is?

If everybody else loves DITA, I would work with it. But I worry that it will
put many people off.

Thanks

Paul Foxworthy



-----
--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/ 

Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/ 

--
View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4669576.html 
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 06/06/2015 08:10, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :

> Sharan-F wrote
>> I'm a bit unclear about what you are suggesting.
>>
>>    * Is it about replacing the Docbook implementation we currently have
>>      within OFBiz with something else (e.g Asciidoc)?
>>    * Is it about extracting the Docbook content from what we currently
>>      have in OFBiz and then generating it into another format that we
>>      could possibly re-introduce?
>>    * Or is it something else?
> Hi Sharan,
>
> My suggestion is much more modest than that. I think there's no need to
> replace existing DocBook content, or to totally change the DocBook process
> we have.
>
> All I am suggesting is that people consider AsciiDoc as a first step when
> authoring help information. If they prefer to work with DocBook directly,
> fine. There are tools to transform AsciDoc into DocBook XML, such as
> AsciiDoctor (http://asciidoctor.org/), so in effect (correctly written)
> AsciiDoc *is* DocBook.
>
> I'll repeat the reasons why I like AsciiDoc. It's more human-readable than
> XML. You can write your documentation in any text editor. Both of these are
> important. In contrast, requiring XML and some more specialised tool is a
> barrier to entry, so less people could and would participate in documenting
> OFBiz.

That's exactly the point indeed, thanks to stress that Paul.

> When I last looked into DITA quite a few years ago, it seemed to be a
> heavyweight thing that only made sense if you wanted multiple destinations

This seems to answer to my question just asked to Ron on the user ML. So you think Docbook (more aimed to create book when DITA is more of online help
kind, I read) or AsciiDoc are not able to OOTB deliver in this way?

> and were willing to invest in proprietary tools like Framemaker, Oxygen or
> Arbortext. I am perfectly willing to believe that DITA is more "complete"
> than DocBook, and would allow "better" documentation, if only anyone was
> willing to invest the time, trouble and money to be able to use it.
>
> I'm pleased to hear there's now DITA support for Eclipse. Eclipse is not my
> favourite IDE, but I could be persuaded to use it. How much better would it
> be to say to potential contributors that they can use their favourite IDE or
> text editor, whatever that is?
>
> If everybody else loves DITA, I would work with it. But I worry that it will
> put many people off.

That's the point we need to clarify...

Jacques

>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
>
>
> -----
> --
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>
> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4669576.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Taher,

Let's see...

Jacques

Le 06/06/2015 11:19, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

> Hi Paul,
>
> I am starting to use DITA and really like it. But I can see your point regarding people being put off. It might be in a sense a bit too powerful for OFBiz and it takes a while to wrap your head around the concepts like maps, topics, etc ... I'm on the fence, maybe leaning slightly towards keeping DocBook, but if a PoC shows how DITA can shine, then why not!
>
> Taher Alkhateeb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Paul Foxworthy" <[hidden email] Pau>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2015 9:10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Possible Documentation and help solutions - DITA
>
> Sharan-F wrote
>> I'm a bit unclear about what you are suggesting.
>>
>> * Is it about replacing the Docbook implementation we currently have
>> within OFBiz with something else (e.g Asciidoc)?
>> * Is it about extracting the Docbook content from what we currently
>> have in OFBiz and then generating it into another format that we
>> could possibly re-introduce?
>> * Or is it something else?
> Hi Sharan,
>
> My suggestion is much more modest than that. I think there's no need to
> replace existing DocBook content, or to totally change the DocBook process
> we have.
>
> All I am suggesting is that people consider AsciiDoc as a first step when
> authoring help information. If they prefer to work with DocBook directly,
> fine. There are tools to transform AsciDoc into DocBook XML, such as
> AsciiDoctor (http://asciidoctor.org/), so in effect (correctly written)
> AsciiDoc *is* DocBook.
>
> I'll repeat the reasons why I like AsciiDoc. It's more human-readable than
> XML. You can write your documentation in any text editor. Both of these are
> important. In contrast, requiring XML and some more specialised tool is a
> barrier to entry, so less people could and would participate in documenting
> OFBiz.
>
> When I last looked into DITA quite a few years ago, it seemed to be a
> heavyweight thing that only made sense if you wanted multiple destinations
> and were willing to invest in proprietary tools like Framemaker, Oxygen or
> Arbortext. I am perfectly willing to believe that DITA is more "complete"
> than DocBook, and would allow "better" documentation, if only anyone was
> willing to invest the time, trouble and money to be able to use it.
>
> I'm pleased to hear there's now DITA support for Eclipse. Eclipse is not my
> favourite IDE, but I could be persuaded to use it. How much better would it
> be to say to potential contributors that they can use their favourite IDE or
> text editor, whatever that is?
>
> If everybody else loves DITA, I would work with it. But I worry that it will
> put many people off.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
>
>
> -----

[Ron Wheeler]

On 06/06/2015 5:19 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Le 06/06/2015 08:10, Paul Foxworthy a écrit :
>> Sharan-F wrote
>>> I'm a bit unclear about what you are suggesting.
>>>
>>>    * Is it about replacing the Docbook implementation we currently have
>>>      within OFBiz with something else (e.g Asciidoc)?
>>>    * Is it about extracting the Docbook content from what we currently
>>>      have in OFBiz and then generating it into another format that we
>>>      could possibly re-introduce?
>>>    * Or is it something else?
>> Hi Sharan,
>>
>> My suggestion is much more modest than that. I think there's no need to
>> replace existing DocBook content, or to totally change the DocBook
>> process
>> we have.
>>
>> All I am suggesting is that people consider AsciiDoc as a first step
>> when
>> authoring help information. If they prefer to work with DocBook
>> directly,
>> fine. There are tools to transform AsciDoc into DocBook XML, such as
>> AsciiDoctor (http://asciidoctor.org/), so in effect (correctly written)
>> AsciiDoc *is* DocBook.
>>
>> I'll repeat the reasons why I like AsciiDoc. It's more human-readable
>> than
>> XML. You can write your documentation in any text editor. Both of
>> these are
>> important. In contrast, requiring XML and some more specialised tool
>> is a
>> barrier to entry, so less people could and would participate in
>> documenting
>> OFBiz.
>
> That's exactly the point indeed, thanks to stress that Paul.

I expect that everyone has an IDE that can edit and validate XML. All
the other tools required are free.

>
>> When I last looked into DITA quite a few years ago, it seemed to be a
>> heavyweight thing that only made sense if you wanted multiple
>> destinations
>
> This seems to answer to my question just asked to Ron on the user ML.
> So you think Docbook (more aimed to create book when DITA is more of
> online help kind, I read) or AsciiDoc are not able to OOTB deliver in
> this way?
Yes but we do have multiple destinations to support - multiple
languages, multiple customizations, multiple brandings.
Topics are likely shared between the same on-line help topic - concepts
shared with different task descriptions.
Eliminate duplication of background material and ensure that there is
only one version of each concept description and that the up to date
description appears in each help screen.
>
>> and were willing to invest in proprietary tools like Framemaker,
>> Oxygen or
>> Arbortext. I am perfectly willing to believe that DITA is more
>> "complete"
>> than DocBook, and would allow "better" documentation, if only anyone was
>> willing to invest the time, trouble and money to be able to use it.
>>
I would not advise purchasing anything unless you are strictly working
as a technical documentation writter and do not have an IDE and do not
understand XML.
>> I'm pleased to hear there's now DITA support for Eclipse. Eclipse is
>> not my
>> favourite IDE, but I could be persuaded to use it. How much better
>> would it
>> be to say to potential contributors that they can use their favourite
>> IDE or
>> text editor, whatever that is?
>>
I am sure that other IDE's support XML and auto-completion of XML.
What IDE's are important?
OFBiz is pretty XML intensive so I would be surprised if OFBiz
developers did not use an IDE that can validate XML.

http://when-others-then-null.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/Validate-XML-against-an-XSD-using-npp.html 
talks about using Notepad++ as a validating editor.

If everybody else loves DITA, I would work with it. But I worry that it
will
>> put many people off.
Possibly but then again OFBiz would be built with Visual Basic if
popularity was the main criteria:-)

>
> That's the point we need to clarify...
>
> Jacques
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Paul Foxworthy
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> --
>> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
>> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>>
>> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
>> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4669576.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [hidden email]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: [phone], ext 102

[Ron Wheeler]

On 06/06/2015 5:20 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Thanks Taher,
>
> Let's see...
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 06/06/2015 11:19, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I am starting to use DITA and really like it. But I can see your
>> point regarding people being put off. It might be in a sense a bit
>> too powerful for OFBiz and it takes a while to wrap your head around
>> the concepts like maps, topics, etc ... I'm on the fence, maybe
>> leaning slightly towards keeping DocBook, but if a PoC shows how DITA
>> can shine, then why not!

I agree that PoC is the next step.

>>
>> Taher Alkhateeb
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Paul Foxworthy" <[hidden email] Pau>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2015 9:10:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: Possible Documentation and help solutions - DITA
>>
>> Sharan-F wrote
>>> I'm a bit unclear about what you are suggesting.
>>>
>>> * Is it about replacing the Docbook implementation we currently have
>>> within OFBiz with something else (e.g Asciidoc)?
>>> * Is it about extracting the Docbook content from what we currently
>>> have in OFBiz and then generating it into another format that we
>>> could possibly re-introduce?
>>> * Or is it something else?
>> Hi Sharan,
>>
>> My suggestion is much more modest than that. I think there's no need to
>> replace existing DocBook content, or to totally change the DocBook
>> process
>> we have.
>>
>> All I am suggesting is that people consider AsciiDoc as a first step
>> when
>> authoring help information. If they prefer to work with DocBook
>> directly,
>> fine. There are tools to transform AsciDoc into DocBook XML, such as
>> AsciiDoctor (http://asciidoctor.org/), so in effect (correctly written)
>> AsciiDoc *is* DocBook.
>>
>> I'll repeat the reasons why I like AsciiDoc. It's more human-readable
>> than
>> XML. You can write your documentation in any text editor. Both of
>> these are
>> important. In contrast, requiring XML and some more specialised tool
>> is a
>> barrier to entry, so less people could and would participate in
>> documenting
>> OFBiz.
>>
>> When I last looked into DITA quite a few years ago, it seemed to be a
>> heavyweight thing that only made sense if you wanted multiple
>> destinations
>> and were willing to invest in proprietary tools like Framemaker,
>> Oxygen or
>> Arbortext. I am perfectly willing to believe that DITA is more
>> "complete"
>> than DocBook, and would allow "better" documentation, if only anyone was
>> willing to invest the time, trouble and money to be able to use it.
>>
>> I'm pleased to hear there's now DITA support for Eclipse. Eclipse is
>> not my
>> favourite IDE, but I could be persuaded to use it. How much better
>> would it
>> be to say to potential contributors that they can use their favourite
>> IDE or
>> text editor, whatever that is?
>>
>> If everybody else loves DITA, I would work with it. But I worry that
>> it will
>> put many people off.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Paul Foxworthy
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>

--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [hidden email]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: [phone], ext 102

[Paul Foxworthy]

I said:

> When I last looked into DITA quite a few years ago, it seemed to be a
> heavyweight thing that only made sense if you wanted multiple destinations

Jacques said:

> So you think Docbook (more aimed to create book when DITA is more of online help
> kind, I read) or AsciiDoc are not able to OOTB deliver in this way?

I don't think that at all. I have used AsciiDoc as a starting point to create training material, and produced both print-ready PDF and HTML complete with colour-coded code examples.

Fundamentally, if we have logical markup to start with, we can produce whatever output we want. At that fundamental level, whether it's DocBook or DITA is not important. What's important is logical markup, so everything has a known purpose. If we know what any portion of the document is for, we can make good decisions about what to do when we produce output.

I will be interested if anyone does create a DITA proof of concept. There is a DocBook to DITA transformation XSLT stylesheet: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dita-ot/files/Plug-in_%20dockbook2dita/docbook2dita%201.0/dbdita.zip/download, so whoever is working on the POC could try it out to convert some of our existing DocBook.

Cheers

Paul

[Paul Foxworthy]

Hi all,

Ron Wheeler wrote

I expect that everyone has an IDE that can edit and validate XML. All
the other tools required are free.

...

OFBiz is pretty XML intensive so I would be surprised if OFBiz
developers did not use an IDE that can validate XML.

Do we only want developers to help documenting OFBIz? Expecting *any* IDE and XML is already a barrier to a business expert who knows how to use OFBiz but doesn't understand XML.

Ron Wheeler wrote

Yes but we do have multiple destinations to support - multiple
languages, multiple customizations, multiple brandings.
Topics are likely shared between the same on-line help topic - concepts
shared with different task descriptions.
Eliminate duplication of background material and ensure that there is
only one version of each concept description and that the up to date
description appears in each help screen.

Sharing of topics and multiple destinations are not unique to DITA.

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

[Sharan-F]

Paul has raised a really key point - it's not only developers that we
want to help document OFBiz. I like the idea of having something that is
simple to use that gives a lot of flexibility and allows anyone to
contribute.

We have the Community Day coming up on Saturday and I'm going to do some
work on the online documentation. I will have a try at using Asciidoc
for editing and then converting to Docbook. I can then give some
feedback afterwards.

Thanks
Sharan

On 15/06/15 03:08, Paul Foxworthy wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> Ron Wheeler wrote
>> I expect that everyone has an IDE that can edit and validate XML. All
>> the other tools required are free.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> OFBiz is pretty XML intensive so I would be surprised if OFBiz
>> developers did not use an IDE that can validate XML.
> Do we only want developers to help documenting OFBIz? Expecting *any* IDE
> and XML is already a barrier to a business expert who knows how to use OFBiz
> but doesn't understand XML.
>
>
> Ron Wheeler wrote
>> Yes but we do have multiple destinations to support - multiple
>> languages, multiple customizations, multiple brandings.
>> Topics are likely shared between the same on-line help topic - concepts
>> shared with different task descriptions.
>> Eliminate duplication of background material and ensure that there is
>> only one version of each concept description and that the up to date
>> description appears in each help screen.
> Sharing of topics and multiple destinations are not unique to DITA.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
>
>
> -----
> --
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>
> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4670019.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Ron Wheeler]

On 14/06/2015 7:08 PM, Paul Foxworthy wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> Ron Wheeler wrote
>> I expect that everyone has an IDE that can edit and validate XML. All
>> the other tools required are free.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> OFBiz is pretty XML intensive so I would be surprised if OFBiz
>> developers did not use an IDE that can validate XML.
> Do we only want developers to help documenting OFBIz? Expecting *any* IDE
> and XML is already a barrier to a business expert who knows how to use OFBiz
> but doesn't understand XML.

The nice thing about DITA is that you can use whatever DITA authoring
tool that you want (with a few exceptions) to produce DITA without
impacting others ability to use their tool to edit the files that you
altered.

The same is true about AsciiDoc but the other issues that I have
mentioned previous make me a bit hesitant about AsciiDOC.

DocBook and DITA are very closely related and share many of the same
benefits and issues.
DITA is a newer standard and is replacing DocBook in most organizations.

>
>
> Ron Wheeler wrote
>> Yes but we do have multiple destinations to support - multiple
>> languages, multiple customizations, multiple brandings.
>> Topics are likely shared between the same on-line help topic - concepts
>> shared with different task descriptions.
>> Eliminate duplication of background material and ensure that there is
>> only one version of each concept description and that the up to date
>> description appears in each help screen.
> Sharing of topics and multiple destinations are not unique to DITA.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
>
>
> -----
> --
> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>
> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4670019.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [hidden email]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: [phone], ext 102

[Jacques Le Roux]

FYI: I was not aware this existed http://asciidoctor.org/docs/asciidoctorj/
"Using AsciidoctorJ, you can convert AsciiDoc content or analyze the structure of a parsed AsciiDoc document from Java and other JVM languages."

I see at least DocBook as backend option. We now from DocBook we can have more option with external tools, just saying, I have no clear ideas yet...

Jacques

Le 15/06/2015 08:39, Sharan Foga a écrit :

> Paul has raised a really key point - it's not only developers that we want to help document OFBiz. I like the idea of having something that is
> simple to use that gives a lot of flexibility and allows anyone to contribute.
>
> We have the Community Day coming up on Saturday and I'm going to do some work on the online documentation. I will have a try at using Asciidoc for
> editing and then converting to Docbook. I can then give some feedback afterwards.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
> On 15/06/15 03:08, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> Ron Wheeler wrote
>>> I expect that everyone has an IDE that can edit and validate XML. All
>>> the other tools required are free.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> OFBiz is pretty XML intensive so I would be surprised if OFBiz
>>> developers did not use an IDE that can validate XML.
>> Do we only want developers to help documenting OFBIz? Expecting *any* IDE
>> and XML is already a barrier to a business expert who knows how to use OFBiz
>> but doesn't understand XML.
>>
>>
>> Ron Wheeler wrote
>>> Yes but we do have multiple destinations to support - multiple
>>> languages, multiple customizations, multiple brandings.
>>> Topics are likely shared between the same on-line help topic - concepts
>>> shared with different task descriptions.
>>> Eliminate duplication of background material and ensure that there is
>>> only one version of each concept description and that the up to date
>>> description appears in each help screen.
>> Sharing of topics and multiple destinations are not unique to DITA.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Paul Foxworthy
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> --
>> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
>> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>>
>> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
>> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4670019.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 16/06/2015 09:48, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> FYI: I was not aware this existed http://asciidoctor.org/docs/asciidoctorj/
> "Using AsciidoctorJ, you can convert AsciiDoc content or analyze the structure of a parsed AsciiDoc document from Java and other JVM languages."
>
> I see at least DocBook as backend option. We now from DocBook we can have more option with external tools, just saying, I have no clear ideas yet...
We Know...

>
> Jacques
>
> Le 15/06/2015 08:39, Sharan Foga a écrit :
>> Paul has raised a really key point - it's not only developers that we want to help document OFBiz. I like the idea of having something that is
>> simple to use that gives a lot of flexibility and allows anyone to contribute.
>>
>> We have the Community Day coming up on Saturday and I'm going to do some work on the online documentation. I will have a try at using Asciidoc for
>> editing and then converting to Docbook. I can then give some feedback afterwards.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>>
>> On 15/06/15 03:08, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Wheeler wrote
>>>> I expect that everyone has an IDE that can edit and validate XML. All
>>>> the other tools required are free.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> OFBiz is pretty XML intensive so I would be surprised if OFBiz
>>>> developers did not use an IDE that can validate XML.
>>> Do we only want developers to help documenting OFBIz? Expecting *any* IDE
>>> and XML is already a barrier to a business expert who knows how to use OFBiz
>>> but doesn't understand XML.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Wheeler wrote
>>>> Yes but we do have multiple destinations to support - multiple
>>>> languages, multiple customizations, multiple brandings.
>>>> Topics are likely shared between the same on-line help topic - concepts
>>>> shared with different task descriptions.
>>>> Eliminate duplication of background material and ensure that there is
>>>> only one version of each concept description and that the up to date
>>>> description appears in each help screen.
>>> Sharing of topics and multiple destinations are not unique to DITA.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Paul Foxworthy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> --
>>> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
>>> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>>>
>>> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
>>> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Possible-Documentation-and-help-solutions-DITA-tp4669377p4670019.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>