Re: [PHP-DOC] Fw: New part in manual? From: Stefan Livieratos (stefan <email protected>)
Date: 07/03/00

----- Original Message -----
From: Hartmut Holzgraefe <hartmut <email protected>>
To: Stefan Livieratos <stefan <email protected>>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Fw: New part in manual?

> Stefan Livieratos wrote:
> > > I would like to split the function references in the manual in
> > > one part called 'Standard Function Reference' and another called
> > > 'Extension Function Reference'. I have attached my suggestion to this
> > > email. Any thoughts or objections?
> > Until now nobody answered so I guess it's OK for me to
> > commit the changes to CVS sometime later.
>
> well, its a step into the right direction, but (IMHO) we should not
> mess with the structure of the manual before we have a reorganisation
> solution that is 'here to stay'
>
> i played around with the functions reference part every once in a while,
> i was thinking of a split into even more parts though:
>
> - standard/general functions
> - HTML/HTTP related functions
> - webserver related (sapi) functions
> - special output formats (image,pdf,flash...)
> - database connectivity

For my understanding splitting the functions in those that are
"always available" and those that are "only available when the
corresponding extension is loaded" is the clearest possible solution.

Besides I don't think that HTML/HTTP related and webserver related functions
should have their own parts since they aren't that many. And what about
extensions that are neither database nor output format related (like
PCRE or Cybercash)?

> the problem with another hirachy level in the function reference part
> is that docbook does not provide such betwenn <part> and <reference>
> so that any reorganization of the function reference would either
> result in lots of tag rewriting (and i'm not yet ready to create
> another mega-patch ;) or break the reference part into several
> seperate parts as you already did.
>
> maybe we should create a cvs branch and play around in it for a little
> while before introducing structual changes in the published manual
> version ... ?

We could do that but I think we ought to change the structure soon
because the function reference part of the manual is pretty confusing
right now.

Regards,
Stefan