[Xcb] proposal for documenting the protocol description (part 1)

[Barton C Massey]

Looks from later email like you're getting started on this.
Hooray!  I'm all for trying anything at this point.  Put the
doc tag in the reply tag or not based on whatever's easiest
to implement; we can always change it later if it bugs us.

	Bart

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701231632560.6243 at grozny.maths.univ-evry.fr> you wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> Jeremy and I have discussed a bit about what and how we should add 
> documentation in the protocol description.
> 
> if we use doxygen, a function needs a brief documentation, a detailed one 
> and documentation for the arguments (and eventually the return value too)
> 
> here is a template:
> 
>    <request name="QueryVersion" opcode="0">
>      <doc>
>        <brief>******</brief>
>        <detailed>*****</detailed>
>      </doc>
>      <reply>
>        <field type="BOOL" name="shared_pixmaps" doc="***" />
>        <field type="CARD16" name="major_version" doc="***" />
>        <field type="CARD16" name="minor_version" doc="***" />
>        <field type="CARD16" name="uid" doc="***" />
>        <field type="CARD16" name="gid" doc="***" />
>        <field type="CARD8" name="pixmap_format" doc="***" />
>        <error code=10 name="BadAccess" when="***" />
>      </reply>
>    </request>
> 
> the error tag can be used for the server side. If several errors can 
> occur, we add several error tags, of course.
> 
> I don't know if the doc tag should go into the reply tag in that case, or 
> not.
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> Vincent
> _______________________________________________
> Xcb mailing list
> Xcb at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb