On Sunday 18 December 2005 12:12 pm, Axel Wernicke wrote: > Re: [Gimp-docs] Proposal for Metadata > Date: Today 12:12:12 pm > From: Axel Wernicke <axel.wernicke@xxxxxx> > To: Roman Joost <romanofski@xxxxxxxx> > CC: GIMP Docs <gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Message was signed with unknown key 0x47D9972D5B006E24. > The validity of the signature cannot be verified. > Status: No public key to verify the signature > Hi Roman, > > to be honest I don't see the benefit of changing the kind of > comments we do by now. The information is almost the same, but > due to that huge surrounding docbook structure it's very hard to > read in the source. Right now I'd prefer to stick to the way we are > doing it today, but may be you can convince me. > I'd like to focus on how to make contributing easier - we could > need some more editors, and right now writing content is very > technically. To deal with all that docbook stuff is more like > writing source code than like writing a book. I'd be very open > minded to see proposals on how to change that. > That's just a great motive to change the comments to actual XM content: whatever tool one will use, it will have to read the XML content, decoding it, and later encode it back - the scripts I was trying earlier did just that, for example. The problem is: when you parse XML, you _do_not_ have access to comments. They are ignored by the parser - (unless you make a custom parser, but even there, you are violating XML specs). well..any program which does not know about the comments, obviously cannot write then back when re-encoding the document. JS -><- _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
