Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 07:45, David Crossley wrote: >> . . . >> So, let us develop a procedure whereby the opensource >> model is still employed, yet there is initial quality control. >> . . . > > Following the opensource model, I think docs should be released as > early as > possible, with only minimal initial quality control but clearly flagged > as > "draft" or something. AND it must be very easy for all readers to give > their > feedback on the docs so that they can be improved. I agree with Betrand. I'm starting to appreciate the need to use the wider community more loosely for CMS roles, not rely on a small group of overworked committers to provide all QA, even subject matter expertise. I agree, that if docs are marked draft, etc. we should be able to release them to the community for comments with the appropriate "use at your own risk" type disclaimers. I would really be sad if authors spent a lot of time and effort on a doc was never released because no committer had the time. I also really hope subject matter experts within the community would be able to provide feedback on documents as they are released in this "draft" form. It's a risk, though, if this doesn't occur. > As opposed to code, docs are not easily declared "right" or "wrong", > they can > start "usable" and become "great" over time I think. I hope this is possible. This would be wonderful. > Ideally readers should be able to add their comment directly on the docs > pages, but as this is not possible today here I suggest the following > mechanism, which would be easy to implement: > > a) each doc has a status attribute: draft, reviewed, reliable, etc. I have something like this but a bit more elaborate based on the research I've done on CMS needs. > b) each doc has a unique ID Do we really need unique ID attribute if filename is unique, or is this short-sighted? I know this unique id is used with many database-driven CMS systems, but I'm questioning if we need this for Cocoon which gives us so many flexible matching options for requests? > c) something like this published at the top of each document > (auto-generated > from the "status" and "doc-id" attributes) > > document status: > draft > document id: > 12.452 > confidence level: > this information has not been verified yet, please comment if you find > mistakes in it > send comments/corrections about this document to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "[doc-comments:12.452]" in subject > line Yes! Absolutely. I was planning to add this info at the transformation stage, especially given the new reality that author contributions may not be reviewed by cocoon-dev. Perhaps once we agree on dtds, you could implement this. > (include a "mailto" link for this and a link to a page that explains > the docs > feedback process) > > Provided this is compatible with the current plan for the docs > publishing > mechanism, I'd be willing to implement the necessary changes. I understand this discussion should occur on Forrest. Are you subscribed there? I'll post my current dtds there later today. Feel free to comment on/expand/revise them. I'm still struggling with how much CMS info belongs in primarily content docs, how much should remain separate. Thanks. Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
