On 2001.05.01, Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, Kris, the 'entire list membership' doesn't feel that way. While
> everything can stand improvement (and I have seen some improvement in
> various areas in the last little while), the documentation could be much
> worse.
I also don't feel that the documentation "sucks." I think "sorely
out of date" may be more accurate, but even then I'm not too sure --
probably 90% of what the docs cover haven't changed anytime recently.
What I would like to see is the source for the documentation checked
into CVS, so that we could maintain it that way. ;-) As far as I
know, Scott Goodwin has brought a lot of the currently existing
documentation into DocBook XML (or am I confused) -- if we could
just get that checked into CVS so that anyone could update it, and
have an automated build process that shoves it through some
processor to spit out HTML and PDF ... we'd be all set!
- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
