Am 16.04.98 schrieb schwarz # monet.m.isar.de ... Moin Christian!
CS> This sounds like a great idea! If noone else objects, please start ? I#ve posted already such a list. CS> maintaining the list! If the list has evolved and is ready, it should CS> become part of the doc-base documentation. ? No it should be part of the Policy or a free standard. This structure will not only used by doc-base. CS> I've included a first proposal of myself below. Note, that this is just my CS> very personal opinion--feel free to change this if you don't like it. Please remove the documents itself from the structure. They#re not interesting for our discussion. CS> 1. Most people seem agree that documents should to be registered in CS> several sections at once. This should be considered when setting up the CS> structure. Most people? Let#s stop this discussion. At first we should talk about the structure and the file format. The use of the system should be discussed in debian-devel. CS> 2. For now, I think we should use the section titles in our list (like I disagree. That#s confusing. CS> make it much easier for us to recognize the correct section for a We will not discuss the section for a document. This should be done by the maintainers of these documents. CS> document. If we've finally agreed on the section titles, we can look for CS> the correct short terms later. I prefer the other way. CS> 3. If the structure has evolved, all online menu systems (dwww and dhelp) CS> should use the same section titles, in order to avoid confusion among CS> users who use both systems or who switch from one system to the other. I agree. CS> 5. We should keep in mind that the structure should make it as simple as CS> possible for the users to find the documentation their looking for.=20 That#s it. CS> Ordering documents into categories like "howto", "faq", "magazines", CS> "debian", etc. (categorized by source) is definitely *not* user friendly!= I disagree 100%. CS> 6. AFAIR, dhelp displays only `used' sections (i.e., sections which CS> contain documents). I think, in general, it would be better if the online CS> systems always display all available sections, even if these are empty, so CS> that the user knows where to look for documentation next time. I don#t understand that. We should a system display 30 directories that don#t include one document? And this is not interesting for the structure. CS> 7. I think it's useful to already include a few example documents in the CS> structure to get a better feeling about what will go into which section. I disagree. CS> 8. We should keep in mind that the section titles will eventually be CS> translated into the user's native language. But for now, we should stick CS> to discuss the English titles. The titles are not interesting. We#re talking about the structure and the short names. CS> language. I think the only logical way to handle this situation, is to CS> store documents of all languages in a single structure, and let the user CS> choose the preferred language at document-level, like in this example: CS> CS> User's Manuals CS> Office applications CS> _StarOffice User's Manual_ (English version, German version) I disagree 100%. CS> Debian's packaging system [admin/packaging] ??? cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
