[Xcb] [xsync] attributes of XCBSyncCreateAlarm

[Barton C Massey]

No, I think a description field is one of the things we
should add to the XML, definitely.  The supplementary
document would just have things like the general overview of
the protocol that don't really fit into the XML description.

We'll have to think carefully what markup we want to make
available for things like the description field.  All the
things I can think of offhand are kind of annoying.

	Bart

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0607251152350.23610-100000 at groucho.unet.brandeis.edu> you wrote:
> 
> So this supplementary document would have "Request A does XYZ" etc.? I was 
> envisioning that this information would be included in the XML... but I 
> guess that would be too much.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Barton C Massey wrote:
> 
> > I think our vision is pretty simple; there's already almost
> > enough content in the XML to generate request descriptions
> > etc in the style of the old protocol descriptions.
> > HTML/man/pdf would be great; I'd settle for generating
> > docbook or something.  I don't plan on copy-pasting anything
> > from the original protocol documentation; if there are
> > things we want to decorate the XML with that's fine, but I
> > am imagining that we will want to have a supplementary
> > document to the request list built out of the original docs.
> > 
> > For checking the correctness of the XML, we'll want to
> > reference the original protocol docs.  That's what I'm
> > working on getting a clean version of now...
> > 
> > 	Bart
> > 
> > In message <44C5FC6B.3040903 at brandeis.edu> you wrote:
> > > Bart,
> > > 
> > > Is there currently any work being done on this?  What are the
> > > requirements?  Are we looking for something that could generate
> > > HTML/man/pdf with links running throughout?  Or something less
> > > complicated?  Are we basically going to copy and paste from the existing
> > > proto docs and then essentially regenerate them?
> > > 
> > > Jeremy
> > > 
> > > Barton C Massey wrote:
> > > > Yes, eventually we'll want to generate the protocol
> > > > descriptions from the XCB XML.  For the purpose of checking
> > > > the XCB definitions, though, I think we just want the
> > > > original troff document formatted in HTML.  I worked on that
> > > > today, but current versions of groff are not good at
> > > > producing HTML: they render all the tables as graphics,
> > > > which makes them pretty ugly and useless.  I'll keep working
> > > > on it; in the meantime I'll probably just give up and post PDF.
> > > > 
> > > > 	Bart
> > > > 
> >