Hi all,
So what's the status of the effort to move the CF editing process to GitHub?
There's a Trac ticket (#92) that has been accepted, but that hasn't yet
been added to the v1.7 draft. I'd like to get it added to the draft
document on the CF website so that I have an easy (and official) place
to reference the new syntax when discussing the files I need to use it for.
Is there anything I can do to help that process along?
Thanks,
--Seth
On 2/13/15 1:49 AM, Hattersley, Richard wrote:
> re: http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html
>
> I've been tinkering in the evenings and now the AsciiDoc form of the
> conventions is somewhere near "alpha release" quality. It still has
> some small quirks here and there but the big issues should all be
> fixed.
>
> As ever, feedback/bug reports are very welcome.
>
> Regards, Richard
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: CF-metadata
> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Hattersley,
> Richard Sent: 04 February 2015 09:04 To: CF Metadata List Subject:
> Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a created a GitHub project to encapsulate the
> DocBook->AsciiDoc conversion. -
> https://github.com/cf-metadata/convert
>
> All contributions to this effort are very welcome. For example, it
> would be very helpful to compare the existing HTML version of the CF
> conventions[1] to the version generated from AsciiDoc[2] and record
> any flaws as GitHub issues[3]. Or if you would like to get involved
> at a technical level, then please feel free to submit pull requests
> updating the conversion process.
>
> [1] -
> http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-conventions/cf-conventions-1.7/build/cf-conventions.html
>
>
[2] -
http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html
> [3] - https://github.com/cf-metadata/convert/issues
>
>
> Regards, Richard Hattersley
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: CF-metadata
> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Hattersley,
> Richard Sent: 29 January 2015 10:21 To: Signell, Richard Cc: CF
> Metadata List Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
> update
>
>> there is still a fair amount of work left to be done converting the
>> document. Is that something that will improve with your
>> improvements to the conversion tool, or will some community manual
>> editing help be required?
>
> My current plan is to improve the conversion rather than use manual
> editing. That way the AsciiDoc version can be regarded as just
> another "rendered" version of the DocBook sources. I'd like to avoid
> having two "definitive" versions of the conventions at the same
> time.
>
> If all goes well (e.g. no technical hurdles) and a consensus for
> change can be reached then the final switch from DocBook to AsciiDoc
> should be relatively quick.
>
>> Also, will there be a way to get nice syntax highlighting in blocks
>> of code like example 21?
>
> Yes, but ... I don't think any of the normal syntax highlighting
> packages (e.g. pygments) have a specific mode for CDL. So either we
> pretend the example is in another language (which might well give
> excellent results) or we knock up an extension for CDL.
>
>
> Regards, Richard
>
>
> From: Signell, Richard [mailto:rsignell at usgs.gov] Sent: 27 January
> 2015 17:13 To: Hattersley, Richard Cc: Filipe Pires Alvarenga
> Fernandes; CF Metadata List Subject: Re: [CF-metadata]
> Editing/publishing workflow update
>
> Richard, Wow, thanks for doing all this hard work for the CF
> community!
>
> I think Asciidoc is okay since it renders in Github and, as you say,
> has a richer model more analogous to docbook.
>
> Looking at: http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html it looks
> like there is still a fair amount of work left to be done converting
> the document. Is that something that will improve with your
> improvements to the conversion tool, or will some community manual
> editing help be required?
>
> Also, will there be a way to get nice syntax highlighting in blocks
> of code like example 21?
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Hattersley, Richard
> <richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk> wrote: Hi Filipe,
>
> Thanks for the encouragement!
>
> I choose AsciiDoc because it has a much richer data model than
> Markdown, and because that data model was deliberately aligned with
> that of DocBook. In the words of the great oracle of Wikipedia:
> ?AsciiDoc is a human-readable document format, semantically
> equivalent to DocBook XML?. This makes the conversion from DocBook
> relatively straightforward (although admittedly DocBook has a lot of
> features!) and avoids it being lossy.
>
> As for the offer of help ... thank you! If this idea gets enough
> support, my current plan is to collate the limitations/failures in
> the current conversion processes and start hacking at code. For now
> I?m not planning on editing the AsciiDoc files by hand. This is
> because I?m currently assuming that automatic conversion from DocBook
> to AsciiDoc is a Good Thing (tm) so we can re-use the same conversion
> to port all the prior versions to GitHub if necessary or if the
> latest DocBook version is updated in the meantime.
>
> Richard
>
>
> From: Filipe Pires Alvarenga Fernandes [mailto:ocefpaf at gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 January 2015 16:21 To: Hattersley, Richard Cc: CF Metadata
> List Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
>
> These are wonderful news! The editing, tracking, and publishing
> workflow will be extremely easy if this is adopted. Not to say that
> it will be more democratic as well thanks to GitHub PRs.
>
> I have one question and two offer.
>
> Question: Why Asciidoc instead of Markdown? (I noticed that, like
> for markdon source, GitHub renders HTML from the Asciidoc source.
> This is nice for quick visualization.)
>
> Offers: I am available to help and to pay a beer ;-)
>
> PS: Loved the travis trick to push to gh-pages!
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Hattersley, Richard
> <richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk> wrote: Dear all,
>
> Summary for the time-pressed reader: - Some of us would like to
> simplify the workflow for editing the CF conventions. - I?ve made a
> work-in-progress demo here:
> http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html. - The demo is
> automatically built from AsciiDoc sources here:
> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions-asciidoc - Feedback
> welcome! What?s the appetite for exploring further?
>
> I?ve recently delved back into the options for simplifying and
> automating the workflow for modifying the CF conventions document.
> This is in the light of some useful discussion early last year, and a
> friendly nudge from Rich Signell (thanks Rich!).
>
> In general, this has been an encouraging exploration. Fortunately we
> are not at the technological vanguard of the publishing world ?
> others with greater resources (e.g. O?Reilly) have already paved the
> way. As a result I believe we can achieve a very workable solution
> based around the AsciiDoc format.
>
> There are three main problems I?ve been looking at: 1. How to
> get from the current DocBook sources to AsciiDoc? 2. How to
> make the authoring/reviewing process easier? 3. How to convert
> AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF?
>
> To get from DocBook to AsciiDoc I have extended an existing solution
> from O?Reilly. They use the AsciiDoc format in their Atlas publishing
> platform so they have already done most of the hard work. Where
> possible I?d like to get my extensions merged into their original.
>
> The authoring/reviewing process relies on GitHub pull requests and
> their built-in support for rendering AsciiDoc. This provides a good
> preview of the document (although some features of the final HTML
> output are not rendered), and an inline reviewing system. (NB. I?ve
> split the document into multiple files, but that is not essential.)
> Once a change has been accepted the corresponding HTML (and
> eventually PDF) is automatically rebuilt and pushed to the demo
> website.
>
> To get from AsciiDoc to HTML/PDF I have used the excellent
> asciidoctor software for HTML and a sister project for PDF. The HTML
> support is excellent but the PDF solution is less mature (there is an
> alternative which might do better). That said, both projects are
> under active support/development and are open to contribution.
>
> Questions, feedback, encouragement, offers of assistance and/or beer
> ... they?re all welcome! ;-)
>
>
> Richard Hattersley AVD Expert Software Developer Met Office
> FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392
> 885702 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Email:
> richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk Website: 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
>
>
>
>
> -- Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
Received on Fri Oct 23 2015 - 14:49:18 BST
