Summarising a bunch of related notes on this topic, and answering some points...
Janet Swisher wrote: >Jean Hollis Weber wrote: >>* Added the statement "All trademarks within this guide belong to legitimate owners." > >This phrasing strikes me as odd. Jonathon Blake answered this question as I would have (but in more detail): it's standard legal boilerplate text. We should keep it. (It's the sentence that was in the V1.x guides, not something I made up, btw.) Thanks, Jonathon. Regarding publication date and software version, Jonathon and Peter have said, in slightly different ways, why people want this information and why it should be on the documents. Jonathon, Peter, Daniel and I don't think we need a "publication history" as such. Daniel suggested having a note saying "this document covers OOo verion 2.1 and was last updated on 12 July 2006". This is approximately what I had suggested, but in the form of a note (instead of under a heading). I'm not sure which I like best: a note or a heading. Does anyone else have a preference? Daniel also suggested a scheme for the "version number" of the chapter. I rather like his suggestion, but I think it is unneccessary. Peter Kupfer asked: >... why would we change the guide if the OOo version didn't change? Daniel answered Peter's question the way I would have, but in more detail. (Thanks, Daniel.) >* Corrections and updates (Errata). >* Expansion/clarification/rewrites of existing chapters. >* Inclusion of new chapters that didn't make it to publication the first time. +1 to everything said Daniel said in his note on that topic. Regards, Jean
