On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
> I like the new organization, but think the alpha listing is > also worthwhile. Why? What does it offer that directives.html does not? (ie. In what circumstances would someone have to spend a non-trivial amount of extra time searching for something because the alpha listing was removed?) > How about putting them into core-toc.html and > core-toc-alpha.html or equivalent, then linking to the actual > explanations? Not a bad idea. core.html is big enough that breaking it up could be okay. However, I still don't see the benefit to all this. The costs I have outlined in my previous email. > I also think it would be nice to have the relevant > stuff connected. Currently, when reading up on things, I do a lot of > cross-referencing across the whole core doc (by far the one I spend > the most time in); it would be nice to have the likely > cross-references in the same document.... Hmmm... Yes, cross-references are good. Wouldn't it be better to include these as "See also" listings in the actual directive definitions? That way, the cross-references would be there no matter how you get to the directives. Could you give some examples of what type of cross-references you are thinking about? By the way, welcome to the list, and thanks for your feedback. Joshua.
