[chuck-users] FLOSS (user editable) manual for ChucK
Tomasz Kaye's brain
tomasz.brain at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 04:24:02 EST 2009
> Michael - excellent suggestion. FLOSS Manuals seems to have a facility
> for including code easily. Has anyone tried putting ChucK code in to
> see if it barfs on it?
I asked Adam at FLOSS Manuals whether there was a sandbox there. There is a
partial one, a manual that can be used for testing things:
Unfortunately you can't publish it, to test exactly how it will appear to
the public, or to export it as a PDF.
I entered some ChucK code into a <pre> element. That seemed to work fine in
the preview. Though probably needs more testing (for instance, do long lines
inside a <pre> element automatically wrap in PDF export? my suspicion is
that they might not).
Tomasz - I was referring to sections as being farther up the layout
> tree than chapters. There are sections and subsections of chapters
> that seem to do quite well in FLOSS manuals. What I am looking for is
> a way to make a split in the manual between our tutorials and the
> reference section. It isn't a pressing issue.
Right, I see.
So, it looks like we have some CSS people who can look at the issues
> here. FLOSS manuals looks terrible. Fortunately we have full access to
> the CSS. I would love if someone were to spend some time with this
> during the Christmas break. I know that Ge spent some time tweaking
> the website layout. I wouldn't want to throw away too much of that
> work. The colours and general typesetting make reading the ChucK
> reference webpages very easy on the eyes.
You mean http://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/ right?
> The more I think about it the more I am strongly leaning towards FLOSS
> manuals. The group we have assembled will work most efficiently that
> way. If we migrate away from this after the sprint then that is ok,
> but I would like to get as many people involved as possible to start
Other collaboration possibilities: We use Wave or some sort of chat to
> talk to each other while we use some other method for building the
> docs. Right now they are in LaTeX and we could go with that system. I
> would be happy to accept changes and ideas all day and then just put
> them into the current system.
Right. Though not a pressing concern at the momoent, in a wave chat with
Kassen we both noticed unworkable lag when the number of 'blips' (messages)
got large. So unless that gets a fix soon, a simpler chat system might be
more appropriate, when we get to that stage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users