Re: [Gimp-docs] Metadata

Axel Wernicke <axel.wernicke@xxxxxx> · Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:02:55 +0100

Hi,

Am 13.01.2006 um 11:43 schrieb Roman Joost:

Hi!

As a result of our last discussion to display metadata at our document
headings and refering additionally to bug[1] #168255, I want to  
propose
to add the following metadata.

We include revision, date and author for only the *last revision*.  
This
is automatically filled in by CVS, once we added the code example  
listed
below. It'll look like this (using sect1 as an example here):

  <sect1info role="cvs">
    <revhistory>
      <revision>
        <revnumber>$Revision$</revnumber>
        <date>$Date$</date>
        <authorinitials>romanofski</authorinitials>
        <revremark></revremark>
      </revision>
    </revhistory>
  </sect1info>

OK, this directly leads to the question which elements we should to  
this for. Since there is no such thing in docbook as "pages", we have  
to decide for a level of sect I'd suppose. How about doing it for  
sect1 and sect2 elements?
By the way, it's valid not to have a revremark element.

The revremark element is left blank. I'm not sure if we should keep  
the
version history via comments and put a remark about the last
changes in the revision tag.

So there we have the second important issue. As far as I see the  
usage of revhistory as proposed here has not the power to replace the  
remarks done for authoring in the head of each file. This is because  
your proposal gives the reader of the manual a date which he knows  
then is the least age of the content. Additionally he gets the  
revision - whatever that will tell him.
It's neither language specific, nor does it contain the information  
about what changed in the content of a file at a specific time.
So, whether we extend the revhistory to something like:

  <sect2info>
    <revhistory>
      <revision role="cvs">
        <revnumber>$Revision$</revnumber>
        <date>$Date$</date>
        <authorinitials>cvs</authorinitials>
      </revision>

      <revision>
        <revnumber>2.2.10</revnumber>
        <date>2006-01-13</date>
        <authorinitials>lexa</authorinitials>
        <revremark>
          de: added translation for de an made file docbook compliant
        </revremark>
      </revision>

      <revision>
        <revnumber>2.2.10</revnumber>
        <date>2005-11-28</date>
        <authorinitials>lexa</authorinitials>
        <revremark>Replaced informalfigures by figures</revremark>
      </revision>

      <revision>
        <revnumber>2.2.8</revnumber>
        <date>2005-09-05</date>
        <authorinitials>????</authorinitials>
        <revremark>Added Making a selection semi-transparente</ 
revremark>
      </revision>
    </revhistory>
  </sect2info>

which is pretty verbose, but can replace the comments with something  
machine readable.
Or we stick to the comments as they are and do the sectinfo thing  
additionally.

A 'cvs' role will help us to filter out the metadata information,  
if we
need it.

Currently, DocBook renders a table which looks not very nice. I could
rewrite the transformation of the revhistory to display the  
metadata as
a small box, which is grayed out or something like this.
[x] go ahead with this

Feel free to comment. If no one disagrees I'd like to add this in a  
few
days.
commenting done :)

Greetings, lexA

Greetings,
--
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Gimp-docs mailing list
Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs

---
Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get...
GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen

Attachment:
PGP.sig

Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
_______________________________________________
Gimp-docs mailing list
Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs