![]() ![]() ![]() One of the great things about YouTube (other than numerous videos of cats) is that if you are looking to learn more about a subject-like DITA XML-there’s plenty of material available for you. Word would also give reviewers a simple way to add comments to the dif they are reviewing.List of DITA-related YouTube Videos (Updated) Oxygen XML Editor also has a XML dif utility, but your reviewers probably don't have a copy of Oxygen or any similar XML editor, but they probably do have Word. ![]() This is likely to give you a more readable display, since traditional dif displays are optimized for comparing code, Word's compare documents is optimized for comparing documents.) One way to very quickly get a navigable WYSIWYG dif of two HTML documents (old and new) would be to open them both in Word and use the compare documents function. ![]() It still has to be automatic, generated from the git diff, though asking writers to manually mark changes isn't going to work.Įven if you could find a way to format dif output in HTML, that in itself would not give you the dif navigation tools that you get from a dif tool (next change, last change, etc.). Perhaps, based on comments, we might be able to use Flare index tags or bookmarks and git "export patch" to do that. (This build never checks anything in, so it doesn't matter if it alters the Flare source after checking it out.) If that's hard, then we could work with a solution that shows, for each changed topic, the diff and a link to the right place in the output. A preprocessing step that locally modifies the XML source to, say, wrap font tags to change the color around changed parts before running the build would be fine. The ideal answer to this question would describe an automated path (no human intervention after setting it up) from the git diffs to highlighted changes in the output HTML. That question asks about ways to help reviewers attach their comments to specific changes this question is about identifying those changes in the output. This question is different from How can we make reviewing HTML documentation easier?. Is there a way to feed those git diffs into a Flare build (this probably involves preprocessing the source) so that in the output, diffs are highlighted? If showing deletions is hard, is there a way to at least mark, at the paragraph level, where there were changes? "Mark" can mean changebars, a font color change, an icon at the beginning of the paragraph - I don't much care what the marker is, as it'll only ever be seen in these review builds. Git knows where the diffs are on the branch. Jenkins checks out the branch from git in order to do the build. I'm looking for a way to make the specific changes more visible in the HTML output. We can give them a list of changed topics, but if a topic is long and the small-but-important change is those two paragraphs most of the way down, then either the writer has to construct detailed instructions for reviewers or reviewers have to scan everything looking for the change. But that just gets you a build reviewers still have to dig around to see what parts changed. That's fine in one sense - we can do a build from the branch, so reviewers can see what the documentation looks like. Some of our reviewers would prefer to look at the changes in the HTML output. This diff is very helpful for reviewing a PR, if you're comfortable reviewing by reading the raw XML. This means that at the end we have a git pull request (PR) that can show a diff between the branch and the main (master) branch. (Flare source is a very HTML-y XML with some Flare-specific additions.) We use git for source control and new work is done on branches. We use Madcap Flare for a large documentation set, with HTML output. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |