I'm a noob in scripting (for years now...) and a BBEdit fan user. I usually find solutions to my problems on StackO or GitH, but this time I do not, and I finally decide to create an account. First post on Stackoverflow ! So stressful !
BBEdit works really great for what I do. But there is 2 things I try to do and I definitively need to know if it's possible or if I change for Atom (wish do it well)... and it will be very painful. I can't stop a such love story without be absolutely sure of... I just can't write it.
So first I use a lot MD with the great Preview CSS from Ryan Dotson.
BBStylish – Attractive Markdown Preview CSS for BBEdit
<https://nostodnayr.net/projects/bbstylish>
Made by Ryan Dotson – rd#nostodnayr.net
Version 1
14 October 2019
I'm really happy with this one but it doesn't deal with tables or MMD stuffs. Is there a CCS somewhere to previewing MMD ? Or there is way to had a part of code to the Ryan Dotson CSS to do this ? I think, if I have no answer, I will ask him directly...
Secondly, is there a way to use Mermaid directly in BBEdit with a plug-in, or a CSS, or magic trick,,
Thanks a lot.
Tschüss
GG
You can use BBEdit's "Preview Filters" feature to set up MultiMarkdown as the preferred renderer for using "Preview in BBEdit". There's pretty detailed information on how to do this, see the "Previewing Pages" section in the user manual (itself available on the Help menu).
Beginning in BBEdit 13.1 (in open beta testing at this writing, check #bbedit on Twitter for the news) you can also select the default Markdown renderer (and MultiMarkdown is an option, if you have it installed) in the Markdown language-specific preferences.
What's the best solution for authoring HTML5 in Emacs? Is there a mode that will do conformance checking?
My best suggestion is to use nxml-mode (available as packages in several linux distributions if you're on that platform) and load the html5 RelaxNG compact format specifications from HTML5 specification page (or any other source if you have one).
Nxml-mode validates xml files on the fly according to relaxNG specifications and give you nice customization features and handy functions for writing documents faster like inserting end-tags and such. Written by James Clark, so you know the author knows his XML.
If you load it like a system package you can probably just add it to your auto-mode-alist and be good to go. I have just set the following two variables for auto-completion and more docs is available at the first link.
(nxml-bind-meta-tab-to-complete-flag t)
(nxml-slash-auto-complete-flag t)
When it is loaded, just load the file you want and specify the location of the schema for html5, save its location through the menu and you should be on your way. There are also more links to documentation on nxml-mode in the link I provided.
I've just seen this project, which apparently takes care of the necessary work to teach nxml-mode about HTML5:
http://github.com/hober/html5-el/tree/master
An easier to install solution may be web-mode. It definitely plays well with HTML5 and doesn't require you to jump through the XHTML hoops.
JavaScript and CSS blocks work as you would hope.
It also includes the ability to handle common templating languages like php, erb, handlebars, etc.
Check out http://web-mode.org for more details. It's available as a package, at least on MELPA.
I had nXML previously but found the schemas quite cumbersome to install, meaning I didn't get it to work with HTML5. I now use web-mode. Drawback is that there is no real-time validation. But that's cool as there are online-tools for that.
I recommend emmet mode. https://emmet.io/download/
This mode can be enabled in other editors rather than Emacs.
I'm going crazy trying to get all of the editors to look similarly. It looks like there's a different color editor option for each file type/code type, which means it takes FOREVER to customize the view.
Add to that: each code/file type color option seems to honor the default set in the generic options only if it feels like it (seems buggy).
I'm currently using Eclipse 3.4.1 (Ganymede).
Is there a version that is less buggy or is there a more consistent way to change the text colors?
Barring that, has anyone gotten a Zenburn-like color scheme in Eclipse that would be willing to share?
I'm working on an Eclipse plugin for this:
http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/eclipse-color-theme
It's by no means complete, but it does work quite well already.
It sounds like there isn't currently a good way of doing this because of the way Eclipse was designed: there's not a good, flexible, inheritable syntax highlight framework to bring consistency to everything.
While you can export & import preferences as Wijnand Warren's answer states, and that does work... kind of... actually going in and editing the preference files to make sure that you're only sharing color information is probably a huge pain in the butt, so not simple. Also, that still leaves the problem of finding someone who has put in the effort & time to create the syntax coloring in the first place.
Also, every time you add a new type of structured text editor (new language per year anyone?), you'll have to go back into settings & edit the highlighting for that language as well.
I have no experience developing for the Eclipse platform, but if someone with more experience would be willing to point me in the right direction (documentation, explanation of how things fit together, etc.), please let me know.
I've searched high and low for an answer to the same question and have all but given up. It is not easy to change the color scheme because, as you said, each language has its own options buried deep in the Configuration tree.
I've read a little about why 'themes' aren't available, and it has something to do with the complexity of Eclipse's XML storage technique. I'm sorry that I can't provide a real solid answer, but I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone in your frustrations.
I've been looking for this too and after a bit of research found a workable solution.
This is based on the FDT editor for Eclipse, but I'm sure you could apply the same logic to other editors.
My blog post: Howto create a color-scheme for FDT
Hope this helps!
Install the color theme plugin from http://eclipse-color-theme.github.com/update. It already consists of some good themes that you can use.
Then just go to menu Window → Preferences → General → Appearance → color theme to apply the themes.
You can download more themes from http://www.eclipsecolorthemes.org.
Just wanted to get an idea for ways (web) developers get round the short fall of (most) WYSIWYG editors, whereby the users that are editing the text aren't always HTML literate enough to produce good/great results.
In the past we have resigned ourselves to either locking down the editor or simply not supplying one.
What are other peoples experiences?
If I understand your question correctly, my advice would be to allow basic text formatting in the editor (bold, italicize, underline, paragraph breaks, etc). Anything beyond that should be handled either by custom fields in your CMS system that talk to the corresponding template, or directly by your designers / front-end people. There really should be no designing going on in your text editor.
Also, using a templating language like Markdown might help editors feel more comfortable formatting their pages.
If you have the resources (as the question implies you do) you get the users to supply copy and designs in what they do know (Powerpoint, Word, Fireworks, etc) and get the people who can do a correct implementation (but who might not be able to write decent prose, etc) to put it into the HTML/CMS/magicthing.
Sometimes it is possible to use something like WYMeditor - it isn't that simple but produces clean semantic code. The other way is using some wiki-like code - Markdown for example. And you can ease editor's life by using some helpers like MarkItUp editor (it also supports original Wiki and Textile).
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
As a developer I really don't like writing documentation but when I have to I'd like to make the process as painless as possible.
The problem with Word is that it constantly gets in my way. I worry more about the layout than about the actual content ... that's why I'd like to get rid of Word.
Ideally I'd like to write my content and then 'compile' it into a document.
I've heard of LaTeX but I don't have any experience with it whatsoever. Would this be the right technology for the job? What editor (Windows) should I use? Is it a good idea to start with LyX?
EDIT: I'm not asking about documenting code (I use Sandcastle for that).
Update 2014:
We have now switched to GFM (GitHub Flavored Markdown).
It's really easy to work with.
Write code & documentation in the same IDE!
Everything can be versioned!
Get great output either as raw txt, html or pdf!
My solution to this was to invest some time in creating a decent Word Template for myself.
The important thing to do is make sure you have a Style defined for everything you can put in the document.
Once you have all the Styles defined and all of the document content tagged with the correct Style instead of formatted in an ad hoc fashion, you'll be surprised how easy it is to produce good looking Word documents quickly every time.
The wider problem here is that everyone spends hours in Word and yet it is very rare for companies to invest in Word training. At some point you have to bite the bullet and take the time to teach yourself how to use it properly, just like you would with any other tool.
Anything you can do with LyX you can do with LaTeX. LaTeX is suitable for all sorts of things; it has been used for everything from manuals to lecture slides to novels.
I think LaTeX is probably worth looking into as an option; if you've ever wanted to "code" for your word processor, LaTeX is for you. At the simplest level you can define new commands to do things for you, but there's a lot of power there. And the output looks really neat.
In my opinion, LyX is fantastic in certain circumstances, handy in others, and occasionally just gets in your way. I think it should be seen as a productivity booster for LaTeX. In other words, learn to use LaTeX before trying LyX. Both are of course free and available for Windows, though the learning curve is quite steep compared with MS Word. For long documents, or plenty of similar documents, LaTeX/LyX is probably a worthwhile investment.
I've found that wikis can be good for this. Find a wiki you like that lets you do a bit of formatting, but nothing really heavy. Ideally it should let you format code easily too - to be honest, the markdown available on SO is probably a good start.
That way:
You have change tracking built-in (assuming a decent wiki)
You can edit from anywhere
Everyone always sees the same documentation (instant distribution)
You can concentrate on content instead of formatting
You could write your documentation using your own XML format and then transform it into any format with XSL (e.g. PDF via FOP+XSL-FO ).
See also the DocBook XML format.
LaTeX is an extremely powerful tool and might well be overkill here as it is designed for scientific/mathematical literature. It has a (relatively) steep learning curve and can be tricky to coax to do exactly as you want if you're new to it. I LOVE LaTeX, but it is not really a general purpose word processor.
Have you considered OpenOffice instead?
LaTeX is really a very powerful language if you need to write documents.
Perhaps you can try texmaker, a cross-platform LaTeX editor:
Texmaker is a clean, highly
configurable LaTeX editor with good
hot key support and extensive Latex
documentation. Texmaker integrates
many tools needed to develop
documents with LaTeX, in just one
application. It has some nice
features such as syntax highlighting,
insertion of 370 mathematical symbols
with only one click, and "structure
view" of the document for easier
navigation.
What about using HTML? This way you could then publish the documentation if there will be need for many people to access it from many places.
Despite all efforts and reasonable expectation I don't think Word Processing has been "solved" yet.
My response to what I also personally find a deeply frustrating experience with MS Word is to avoid it altogether and use an auto-documenting tool like GhostDoc to generate XML from what I've already written in the code (DRY!) and deal with the XML from an XSLT based intranet site or similar later.
Are you talking about documenting your actual code? If so, I recommend Doxygen for unmanaged code and Sandcastle for managed code. Both will compile your help or build it as a website for you.
Both applications will read special tags above functions / classes / variables and compile that into the help.
Well I've never found anything wrong with MS-Word in the first place. (i.e if you take the time to know how to use it effectively). OpenOffice indeed is an amazing & credible free alternative - but then if you hate MS Word for layout related problems, the same problem is gonna occur with OpenOffice too.
Never tried the Latex system myself, but have heard its good for scientific work. I think using some HTML WYSIWYG editor would be best for you, if you want to just focus on the content.
I considered a wiki, but I decided to go with a modified Markdown notation, for the simple reason, that a wiki's content isn't easily exported and distributed outside of the wiki itself, while the Markdown can be rendered into HTML.
Answer to chris' question about my workflow: I write the documentation with a Notepad-like application (TextWrangler, only because of its word-wrapping feature) in its raw Markdown format. Then I have a small localhost documentation website with my modified Markdown parser (extended for a few features and a bit more HTML-oriented functionality) that checks for the timestamps for the documentation files - if a file has been updated, it parses that file into HTML, and stores the file in a cache.
This way I'm able to edit the source documentation on my desktop, and just press F5 in my browser to see the results immediately.
I haven't got around to trying it yet, but I've always thought AsciiDoc would be good for this kind of thing.
If you want something simpler than LaTeX, you can have a look at ReStructured Text
Read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pragmatic_Programmer . There is some idee fixe inside, so that documentation should be built automatically. Think about using your IDE for this, or look for some additional tools. Most modern languages support generating documentation as you write the code. This can simply maintain your doc in touch with latest changes in the code.
I prefer to use a RTF editor which is a lot less clunkier than words. This way the formatting and all the headers/footers nonsense will not take up half your time. Wordpad has worked for me on several occasions. I'm stuck with Word for now though :(
there are a lot of possible ways:
embedded documentation, e.g. javadoc: good for describing APIs, not so good for the "big picture"
plain html: can be checked in under version control, a definite plus
a wiki, e.g. confluence -- great for collaboration, but has version control different from your source
LaTeX or somesuch: better suited for books or papers than typical documentation; support for graphics is cumbersome
an Office clone, e.g. OpenOffice: mostly the same as Word+Visio, but open source, with a nicer document format
I usually document the software structure (the "metaphors" of a project, component interrelations, external systems) up front, using Visio, in "freeform" UML. These are then embedded in confluence, which can be converted to PDF if someone wants a printout.
LyX
LyX is a WYSIWYM front end to LaTeX: You get the convenience of a document processor (somewhat similar to Word) with the consistency and power of LaTeX: It doesn't get in your way and can do a lot of things that professional writers need.
Note: The correct answer for you really depends on your way of thinking --- we can't decide this for you. This answer simply shows an excellent choice if you think of documentations as documents and want something similar to Word (where Word is good) that doesn't suck as Word (where Word is bad for programmers).
But many programmers think of documentation differently and hence prefer different metaphors. I myself had the same problem years ago, worked with LaTeX (as I am a mathematician), found LyX and finally settled on a Wiki/Source system that I wrote myself.
Vim is the solution for anything that means writing plain text in the most efficient possible way. If you need formatting, then use XML, Latex or something similar (in Vim).
Vim changed my life!
Simple answer: LaTeX sounds like just what you are looking for.
I use it for writing documentation myself. I will never go back to Word if I have the option.
At phc, we started with latex, then moved to docbook, and have settled (permanently I hope) on Restructured Text/Sphinx.
Latex was chosen because we are academics, and latex is the tool of choice. I believe it didn't generate good enough HTML.
Docbook was chosen for power, but it was very unwieldy. It put us off writing any documentation: code had to be manually formatted, we kept forgetting the syntax, and it was difficult to read. The learning curve was also steep.
Finally, we moved to reST, using sphinx, and that was a great decision. Documentation is now very easy to write, and both PDF and HTML versions look beautiful (though the PDF could do with some customization). Its very easy to customize too.
The best bit about reST though, is that its human readable in source form. That is a wonderful advantage. I've switched to using reST for all my stuff now, especially anything over the web (except of course academic papers, where one would be foolish to use anything but latex).
You may want to look into doxygen at http://www.doxygen.nl/, see their nice examples. In this case, the documentation is presented by tags in comments in the source.
Another option would be to use an online system like trac from http://trac.edgewall.org/ which is a wiki/doc/issuetracking system that lives on top of subversion.