Hi, >>> I still think we should remove the <revhistory> entries, maybe >>> adding a <!-- $Id$ --> instead, which will be expanded by SVN to >>> <!-- $Id: foo.xml 2666 2009-02-30 21:30:00Z author $ --> >> What is interesting for users is "Has the information in this file >> changed or been updated?". >> >> We must distinguish: >> - "semantic" changes, bringing new information >> . update to v2.6 >> . correction of errors >> >> - "formal" changes, not bringing new information >> . typos corrections >> . rewriting the text for better understanding without adding any new >> information. >> . changes in xml structure >> >> It seems that your $id$ proposition doesn't distinguish this. > > Yes, it's just the information (for documenters or translators) who > committed when any changes. > >> I propose to add two new <para> at the top of files, showing >> "semantic" changes, that will appear in the html: >> <sect2> >> <para>subcript>File updated to v2.6 on ... by >> ...</subscript></para> <para>subcript>File improved on ... by >> ...</subscript></para> and perhaps also: >> <para>subcript>File translated to ... on ... by >> ...</subscript></para> >> >> <subscript> because this information must be unobstrusive in the HTML >> file. An interest is that these <para> can be translated in all >> languages, avoiding english in localised html. > > IMHO a nice idea. :-) However, > (a) at the top the reader should find the most important information > (summary, screenshot, previews, etc.), so this new para should go the > bottom of the (HTML) file; > (b) <subscript> is definitely the wrong way to add a para using a tiny > font; the correct method is: hmm, I have no idea... ;-) > (passing an attribute to HTML?) There is a better solution : adding a <revremark> in the revision. <revision> <date>2009-01-04</date> <authorinitials>ude</authorinitials> <revremark> Updated to v2.6</revremark> </revision> Instead of "Updated to v2.6", we can have "Improved". ( an indivible space (AltGr+Shift+space) is necessary before this text for alignment with data above). And we must decide that the information in "revision" is intended for users (they appear in the html). All other information, intended for doc writers, must be in the commented "Section history". I'll apply this in my next patch. Julien _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
