Testing and documentation prcess requires guns all the time. Special attention is needed on tools selection and vision in the future. There are tons of implementations and flavors.
On top of that, you should consider, there is no such thing as Standard Markdown. Styp by step, the toolchain will become same piece ofĬlever soft that is broken once every 3rd release. But everybody knows, rules are pointles if there is no method for check them.Īfter that, you will make tools about it. Countless idaes of how the documentataion should look like. On documentation writers, then you will face other problems. Using actual (valid) HTML5 in Markdown files, and CSS stylesheets. e.g see the open change request to improve the documentation, they are open since weeks. IMHO the documentation is too much neglected and that there is currently a lack of a leader who is exclusively responsible for documentation and where everything comes together. The documentation team of KDE and Gnome also works with docbook/Īre there examples of projects that use Markdown as documentation and how is the translation workflow there? Unfortunately, I have no experience of how this works for larger projects. Which restrictions are there compared to docbook? translation) has to be defined or written down so that everyone knows it before the change and nothing will be overseen. Therefore, I find the procedure and the use of po files very advantageous.Ī change to markdown or similar should be well planned and thought through! From my point of view, the new workflow (incl. I don't want to care about the layout of the document. I have got used to the processes of Darktable together with Docbook, so for now I see no reason to switch to markdown (IMHO).įrom a translator's point of view it is important to me that I want to limit myself to translating and proofreading.
0 kommentar(er)
