[TYPO3-doc] Official docs: Mostly CamelCased now (to be pushed again)

[François Suter]

Hi,

> Yes, it does. Here is a link to summarize all README format supported by Github.
> https://github.com/github/markup#markups
>
> If we have a single format, README included, for all our docs, that would be better IMO.

That's good to know. IMO it's then fine to recommend using reST for the 
README file. But I still would not include the README in the manual upon 
rendering. I see the README as a kind of quick summary/getting started 
stuff.

> FLOW3 / Phoenix would have their "Package.xml" file but it doesn't change the idea that there is
> informations / metadata in the package that we can take advantage when it comes about docs
> rendering. Otherwise, how (and where) would do you handle the version number of the docs? And the
> title? I am not keen of having this info duplicated... furthermore, I wouldn't separate too much
> official documentation from extension manual on this question. It is just more work to support
> different way of doing within the build chain.

Well then maybe we can use "Package.xml" in documentation repositories 
too. I really dislike the idea of having a "em_extconf.php" file some 
something that does not use PHP, nor is related to the EM. I find that 
completely misleading.

I'm all for avoiding duplication, but we also have to strike a balance 
between duplication and complexity. I'm  perfectly fine with having some 
duplication for the time being and make improvements later. It seems to 
me that we have no good idea yet how to avoid such duplication, while 
maintaining consistency in the reST files themselves, which - as I 
mentioned in the other thread about conf.py - should ideally be 
standalone IMO.

Cheers

-- 

Francois Suter
Cobweb Development Sarl - http://www.cobweb.ch