Maxim Dubinin wrote:
> Will it help if I provide list of modules, for which docs are
> not fixed in develbranch_6? Some of them are among those *few* that
> actually need header, I assume.
In general, most user-visible modules generate the header dynamically,
while libraries, drivers, support programs and a few (mostly
interactive) modules don't.
> Also I've notice that for some modules description.html is substituted
> by module-name.html (see for example r.mapcalc.html, lrs.html), is it
> normal? Just wondering.
If more than one module is built from a directory, the HTML files are
named after the module. Directories which just install static HTML
files typically name them (or at least one of them, if there are
several) as they see fit (description.html and <module>.html are built
into the make logic which generates HTML files).
FWIW, the situation has changed quite a bit in 7.0:
1. HTML files are always named after the module, never
description.html.
2. There are fewer modules which don't generate the header.
3. The resulting HTML files must be valid according to the HTML4
(transitional) DTD or you get an error (the script which converts the
HTML files to nroff manual pages changed from a Perl mess which uses
ad-hoc search/replace to one which uses a real HTML parser).
--
Glynn Clements <
[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
grass-translations mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-translations
