Re: Documentation needs

On 2/17/2017 4:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Joe wrote: >> I've looked at the wiki. The documents there are all pretty old. >> They may be ok, but they were written for older versions of the software. > > Your real starting point is here: > >

Re: Documentation needs

Joe wrote: I've looked at the wiki. The documents there are all pretty old. They may be ok, but they were written for older versions of the software. Your real starting point is here: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/UserGuide This is for the current (4.1.x) version and is

Re: Documentation needs

Hi Patricia, I'm not sure if I should be following up on any of the bits and pieces below. I could go through the process of introducing myself and getting an account, but it also seems like perhaps the group is inactive. I've looked at the wiki. The documents there are all pretty old. They

Re: Documentation needs

On 02/15/2017 06:07 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >From this perspective I'd start with an FAQ. This is where it would be great if Solr, in conjunction with some of the other technologies that are being developed by The Apache Software Foundation could crawl through the various mailing lists, forums,

Re: Documentation needs

On 2/15/2017 12:43 PM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > >> [knmc] >> I do not read German, but from the looks of the ProOO-Box >> page above, it >> appears that the documentation is based on the work of the OOoAuthors >> Group and as such would

Re: Documentation needs

I learned on Fosdem from the pro documenters to stick to # use case oriented approach. ALWAYS. # never start with index # set the possibility to provide feedback as low as possible. # and only describe how it is done # don't use insiders. >From this perspective I'd start with an FAQ. And then

Re: Documentation needs

> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] > [knmc] > I do not read German, but from the looks of the ProOO-Box > page above, it > appears that the documentation is based on the work of the OOoAuthors > Group and as such would most likely be under the CC-BY license. > [/knmc]

Re: Documentation needs

On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 2/14/2017 10:40 PM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org] >> >>> I'm sure our documentation needs work, and there is someone with >>> writing, editing, and copyediting skills hoping to help. The >>>

Re: Documentation needs

Hi Patricia, A good starting point would be our SDK (HTML documentation). http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/odk/ I only wanted to update the Apache logo for the HTML docs but then I found some typos, outdated links (e.g. to SUN Java) and still some OpenOffice.org branding. I

Re: Documentation needs

Hi all Am .02.2017, 15:20 Uhr, schrieb Patricia Shanahan : On 2/14/2017 10:40 PM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hello, From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org] I'm sure our documentation needs work, and there is someone with writing, editing, and copyediting skills hoping to

Re: Documentation needs

On 2/14/2017 10:40 PM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hello, From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org] I'm sure our documentation needs work, and there is someone with writing, editing, and copyediting skills hoping to help. The doc@ list seems to be dead, except for one message posted this year.

Re: Documentation needs

Hello, > From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org] > I'm sure our documentation needs work, and there is someone with > writing, editing, and copyediting skills hoping to help. The > doc@ list > seems to be dead, except for one message posted this year. > > What would be the best way