All,
Converting to a simpler, more tractable markup format would be nice, but a
couple comments:
> A few months ago I looked into converting to a word processor format, but
it looked like a much bigger job than I could afford the time for.
Please dont go that way anyway! XML may be a pain, but if you're going to
make a change, make a change to a format that is easier to mange in a
version control system, and doesn't require proprietary software to manage.
I am willing to take an initial crack at putting the CF Conventions
> document in github format, if that's the missing piece.
>
>
gitHub supports a number of different markup formats. Markdown is the
default, and is nice an simple, but pretty limited. So take a look at the
other options -- ReStructuredText (RST) may be a better option, for
instance.
-Chris
> John
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 09:44, "Jeffrey F. Painter" <painter1 at llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> > Richard,
> >
> > We (meaning LLNL people) don't really have positive plans to stay in
> DocBook format. It is simply less effort to use it than to identify and
> convert to an alternative, if one exists. We recently bought a copy of the
> XMLmind XML Editor, which makes in reasonably tractable to edit in DocBook.
> >
> > I suspect that most markup languages won't do all features used in the
> CF Conventions document. We may be able to work around that, but I'm not
> sure of it. A few months ago I looked into converting to a word processor
> format, but it looked like a much bigger job than I could afford the time
> for.
> >
> > I would be delighted if you could do this better! You definitely have
> the right idea for where we should be. And I hope that having this
> discussion on the cf-metadata list will bring out some more good ideas.
> For the next few weeks, I don't think we at LLNL will do more than make
> the documents, and the Trac system, reliably available on the web again,
> and put the document sources on github.
> >
> > - Jeff
> >
> >
> > On 3/11/14 3:22 AM, Hattersley, Richard wrote:
> >> Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> That's excellent news. And thanks for the update - it'll save me
> duplicating your efforts.
> >>
> >> It looks like your current plans are for the source code to stay in
> DocBook format. Do you also have any plans to allow "instant" visual
> feedback? For example, to convert it to another format which can be
> rendered by GitHub (https://github.com/github/markup#markups) or
> reathedocs.org?
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jeffrey F. Painter
> >> Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
> >> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
> >>
> >> Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go
> for the CF Conventions. And the previous messages on this thread turn out
> to be very timely!
> >>
> >> For background, over the last few months our Plone-based web site has
> >> become unmaintainable as we lost infrastructure support. Just a few
> >> days ago I gave up on fixing the system. Matthew Harris has been
> working on a new web site, located mostly at github. It should be up
> within a week.
> >>
> >> The CF Conventions "source code" has for many years been in in DocBook,
> >> an xml dialect. It is presently kept in a Subversion repository. We
> >> will very likely make this available on github.
> >>
> >> After the documents, the most important component of the CF Conventions
> web site is the Trac issue-tracking system. Last week I migrated it to a
> more recent version on a new machine. Over the next week I plan to migrate
> it to the latest production version. This will continue to be hosted at
> LLNL, but a link to it will be on the github site.
> >>
> >> I hope these changes will serve the CF community at least for the short
> run, so we can think seriously about what systems to use in the long run.
> >>
> >> - Jeff Painter
> >>
> >> On 3/10/14 7:20 AM, Signell, Richard wrote:
> >>> Richard,
> >>>
> >>> I think moving to github would be a huge improvement. The git model
> >>> and the tools that github provides would make it much easier for other
> >>> folks to propose changes, and for those changes to be reviewed,
> >>> discussed and merged. I think Brian and a few others were also in
> >>> favor when we discussed this last fall, but we lacked someone to carry
> >>> the flag.
> >>>
> >>> -Rich
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Hattersley, Richard
> >>> <richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I've recently been dipping into the UGRID conventions
> >>>> (https://github.com/ugrid-conventions/ugrid-conventions) and was
> >>>> struck by how pleasant the editing/publishing workflow was. Clearly
> >>>> from a content complexity point of view the UGRID conventions are
> >>>> smaller and simpler than CF so a direct comparison is not possible,
> >>>> but to help illustrate some of the possibilities I've prepared a
> >>>> cut-down demo version of the CF conventions document using GitHub and
> "Read the Docs".
> >>>>
> >>>> The published versions of the demo are available from:
> >>>> http://cf-conventions.readthedocs.org. I've set the default version
> >>>> to 1.6, but by using the options in the bottom-left corner of the
> >>>> page it is possible to view 1.7-draft.1 instead. There is also a PDF
> >>>> option, but that currently has a few quirks which I've not attempted
> >>>> to address. NB. By ticking a box in GitHub, these published versions
> >>>> are automatically updated whenever the underlying content changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> The underlying "source code" is defined using reStructuredText (reST)
> >>>> markup for processing by the Spinx document generator. It is hosted
> on GitHub at:
> >>>> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions. I created the reST
> >>>> markup using an off-the-shelf HTML-to-reST converter but it did
> >>>> require some subsequent manual tweaks.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've also created a simple "pull request" to illustrate what happens
> >>>> when someone proposes a change:
> >>>> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions/pull/1. NB. By default
> >>>> GitHub shows the changes in the source code, but it can also show a
> >>>> rendered version of the changes, much like the strikeout/highlight
> >>>> style used in the current workflow:
> >>>> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions/pull/show/1/files/e7c84
> >>>> 59#diff-e7c84590262562a10e9fb4cf714098d3
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there interest in taking this further?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard Hattersley
> >>>> Benevolent Dictator of Iris - a CF library for Python:
> >>>> www.scitools.org.uk/iris
> >>>> Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> >>>> Tel: +44 (0)1392 885702
> >>>> Email: richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk Web: www.metoffice.gov.uk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> John Graybeal
> jbgraybeal at mindspring.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chris.Barker at noaa.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20140311/a90ced1c/attachment.html>
Received on Tue Mar 11 2014 - 14:14:55 GMT
