RE: xsl self-documentation - ideas

["Pawson, David" <DPawson at rnib dot org dot uk>]

David Carlisle 

>OK so I'm completely confused as to the goals!!!

  My fault David. 


>I thought that this was describing a "weave" system that would extract
>documentation from a documented source file.
>
>Ie would, in this case, presumably be an XSL stylesheet that 
>takes (just)
>the stylesheet being documented as input, and outputs a documented
>version of the stylesheet (eg as an html file with lots of 
>links between
>the code and documentation)

If we all understand the weave process, then fine,
a 'weave' based solution will do the job. I was hoping to leave it
more open than that, to encompass either a seperate process
acting on the stylesheet-to-be-documented (which then becomes
the source document), or an 'in-line' process, ~ almost debug /
run-time trace type thingy. 

Are there benefits in either ease of implementation or clarity 
in either approach?

>Both sorts of information are useful, but they are quite distinct
>processes aren't they? 

Yes. 

Perhaps split the solution and look for opportunities in either one?
Suggest the 'in-line' process is more useful when 'tracing',
the 'weave' process when simply documenting the stylesheet
'statically'.

Regards, DaveP


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list