[Xcb] [xsync] attributes of XCBSyncCreateAlarm

[Jeremy A. Kolb]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Barton C Massey wrote:

> 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.
> 

Okay cool.

> 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.
> 

Do you mean for markup within the description? As in typeset or 
hyperlink-like abilitities?

> 	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
> > > > > 
> > > 
>