[Mono-list] ECMA compliance

[A Rafael D Teixeira]

Let me dream a little...

First: I´m sure the original documentation MUST be embedded, or it´ll get 
out-of-sync very easily. The question here is: can we extend the XML schema 
to allow for multiple languages in the original documentation? I would like 
the answer to be yes, so that I could keep english and brazilian portuguese 
documentation in my sources, like this:

/// <summary i18n:lang="EN-US">This method returns the container of a given 
control</summary>
/// <i18n:summary lang="PT-BR">Este método retorna o contêiner do controle 
passado</i18n:summary>
/// <param name="control" i18n:lang="EN-US">Control in question</param>
/// <i18n:param name="control" lang="PT-BR">Controle em questão</i18n:param>
public static Control ContainerFor(Control control)
{
//....
}

Second: We can think of a centralized repository for xml documentation, a 
kind of cvs interfaced by web services, to control and NOTIFY translators of 
changes in the original documentation

What do you think?

Rafael Teixeira
Brazilian Developer



>From: "Serge" <serge@wildwestsoftware.com>
>To: <mono-list@ximian.com>
>Subject: Re: [Mono-list] ECMA compliance
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:20:28 +0200
>
> > Would this be legal?
>I think it is legal. See the following link:
>http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/15136/2001/9/0/6655171/
>Sure, it's only legal for ECMA supplied documents not for MS docs.
>
>
> > I hear that. Although for now any real API documentation in the source
> > can always be pulled to XML, but I can see an external solution being
> > better for maintainability.
>
>Honestly, I can't see why embedded docs would cause any problems.
>It's in XML, so could be (relatively) easily converted into virtually any
>desired format.
>And to me it seems it's more maintainable in this form (and less chances 
>for
>it go out of sync with the code).
>So, I guess I'm missing something?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Derek Holden" <dsh2120@draper.com>
>To: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel@ximian.com>
>Cc: "John Barnette" <jbarn@httcb.net>; "Juantomás García Molina"
><juantomas@disoft.es>; "Antonio Ismael Olea González" <ismael@olea.org>;
><mono-list@ximian.com>
>Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:24 AM
>Subject: RE: [Mono-list] ECMA compliance
>
>
> > >> coverage holes will be pretty trivial, I'm open to any suggestions on
> > >> an efficient way to insert the ECMA API docs into existing files.
> >
> > > Copy paste is the best I can think of.
> >
> > Would this be legal? I was doing this at one point, but yanked it all 
>out
> > because I didn't know if it was okay or not.
> >
> >
> > > So something to keep in mind, we might end up with a solution where we
> > > move the documentation to an external file to satisfy those needs.
> >
> > I hear that. Although for now any real API documentation in the source
> > can always be pulled to XML, but I can see an external solution being
> > better for maintainability.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@ximian.com
>http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp