Re: bnv_have_qt

[Peter Simons]

Bastiaan Veelo writes:

 >> I fixed a minor syntax glitch that the SGML parser
 >> uncovered [...].

 > That is cool. BUT, would I have been able to generate the
 > HTML myself, I could have visually checked the result and
 > verified it with the CERN tools.

If you have libxml (or any other sgml/xml validator)
installed, you can validate the macro by calling:

  xmllint --valid --noout bnv_have_qt.xml

That's how I found the syntax error (an unterminated <tt>
tag). There isn't much of a generation process: The
documentation tag contains pure XHTML 1.0. You can check how
it is layouted with any web browser.

I admit it's bad that you can't just display the entire XML
file with a web browser, though, that would make things much
easier. It may be as simple as adding CSS information into
it, but unfortunately I know little about that.

Anyway, back on topic: What do we do with BNV_HAVE_QT? ;-)
Since making the greater changes obviously won't happen
overnight, I think we have only two choices right now:

 (a) Convert it back to legacy markup. This loses some
     formatting, but solves all other problems for the
     moment.

 (b) Commit a pseudo-macro in the legacy tree that tells the
     user to go to www.gnu.org/.../bnv_have_qt.html for the
     real thing, so that sf.net is no longer out-of-sync.
     It's a kludge, but allows the macro to remain in the
     new format ... should that be desirable.

Bastiaan, it's your macro. What do you think?

I'll address the other points you raised (like versioning)
in the appropriate other threads.

Peter