Re: Position of existing documentation in new scheme


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:32:51 -0500


Kim Lester wrote:
>
> Following on from Martin's comments about editing
> of existing comments:
>
> As der.hans said we should try and put the effort
> back on the authors (instant volunteer generally
> with a vested interest) Although this many
> not be practical in every case.
Yep.
>
> In the mean time how about the following:
>
> Define format.
> Convert some key docs to this "core" format.
> Such docs would have full categorisation/indexing
> features.
> All other docs would be palced in an outer ring
> of docs (so that at least they were there, but
> maybe with just a basic categorisation) and
> as time permits they could be integrated into
> the core.
I think it would make more sense when getting
started to try to use some of the existing docs and their
formats as well as the new format for the top level.
There are a LOT of documents out there. For example
all the HOWTO's are in a good format where a lot
of relevant info could be extracted (author, date,
subject, synopsis, etc.)

> Using a system like this would mean that
> right away we'd have a significant body of
> text to present to the user community.
At the top level or total? Not at the top level
unless you get a whole lot of documents converted....
>
> The distinction between core and outer
> docs should be made clear though, so that
> users/authors see that this is a worthwhile
> work in progress rather than yet another
> random collection of articles.
>
> kim

-- 
W. Wade, Hampton  <whampton@staffnet.com>  

Linux is new, it's come out of nowhere, it's free. Hard to beat that price. And it's taking marketshare left and right.

--Microsoft's lawyer, in closing argument, Bristol v. Microsoft, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bti/07-15closing.htm



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jan 11 2000 - 08:34:21 EST