On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 10:34 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
My own belly tells me that people will write more and better user documentation if they get some proper playground. Having to worry about code sitting right beside their documents will not bring peace in their minds.
Ok, please, explain to me why the cocoon CVS module is not a proper playground for people writing docs because I don't understand.
A few Belly Thoughts:
+ Consider what we are about to implement in 2.1. Forrest generates our web site and docs, based on the contents of xdocs. What if docs people want to experiment? How can we do that if the place where docs live, next to code, it automatically considered final by our publishing mechanism. Therefore, all experiments either break the automatic publishing or get published to the web (which we may not want).
+ What about prototyping new doc approaches, like reference pages for logicsheets, as Andrew recently proposed. What if we need some special jar for that, something totally related to docs, not the cvs. Where shall we put it? Bloat the code repo for docs-only needs? Put it in Forrest? Well, what if it's outside the "concern" of Forrest or we don't want to wait for Forrest -- e.g. experiment a little internally?
+ CMS issues, already raised in previous posts.
+ What if we start some global docs transition, say based on adding Dublin Core data, etc. What if we have only a partial set of docs changed over. Wouldn't a docs module, with an experimental/head branch, be a great place for this collaboration?
All right.
I'm changing my vote from -1 to +1. I trust the people wanting this enough to appreciate the fact that they might point out that I'm wrong and I'm not seeing where the problems are.
I hope that others reconsider their vote.
Stefano.
