Any ddox experts n da house?

[Mathias Lang via Digitalmars-d]

2015-02-14 10:46 GMT+01:00 Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>:

> On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 09:17:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> Counting on your help!
>>
>
> Here are some things that would help:
>
> 1. Most urgently, update the .dt template to match the current Dlang.org
> style.
>
> 2. Ideally, the .dt templates need to be removed, and DDox made to use the
> existing DDoc templates. This is so future website updates are immediately
> reflected in DDox, to avoid this situation in the future.
>

I'm leaning in the other direction: the website should not be based on a
macro processing system, but rather on a web framework. However, we use the
*content* on dlang.org to generate other targets than the website. It would
be unacceptable to kill these targets just to switch to another framework,
so there's a compromise to find here.
Relevant link: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/m9g1kt$1j01$1@digitalmars.com

Right now all the boilerplate of the website (navigation, basic layout)
lies within the 'DDOC' macros, in which every file gets inserted. On the
long run I plan to switch this to a Diet template, so ddox and the website
will share it and it will reduce the maintenance burden. The format of the
content itself will not change, it will still be in ".dd" files, and they
will get processed by the site on startup. We'll get the best of both
world, keeping the possibility to output any target out of the specs, but
writting website-specific part in a proper framework.

I've got a PoC working, which generate exactly the same layout as dlang.org
(give or take a few whitespaces), but is based on Vibe.d:
http://doc.mimiks.net:8000/changelog.html . Once it's polished, I'll P.R.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150215/ee3f1309/attachment.html>