On Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 01:49:06PM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes: > > APH> Currently, the domain of allowable values is > > APH> > > APH> * howto > > [ ... ] > > > > I don#t understand that. We don#t need that, because for this purpose we > > have got the section tag. > > Not as I read the DDH. Anyhow, it's an optional field.
I think this is a good idea. This seperates the orthogonal criteria for document types, but adresses concerns of Marco that documents should be accessible via the type. So, a nice frontend could display the DDH or, alternatively, the Types:. > > APH> Title > > APH> LANG > > APH> can set > > > > Not necessary, the title should be in the language of the document. > > !! Duh! That's a good point! I guess you're right that there's no > point on translating the title of an english document into German, is > there? I think it is a very good idea to translate the title of a document. It is done so everytime (and translating titles of computer related documents isn't a big deal). > If I recall, you would prefer to have docreg files in the > documentation area, i.e., /usr/doc/<pkg>. I am amenable to this, > actually, but if you're going to be reading docreg files directly, I > think this is going to be evil. The docreg file isn't documentation, therefore it has nothing to do in /usr/doc. They shouldn't appear there, and I *hate* dot files elsewhere than in my home directory, where I don't know about them. > > APH> is not enforced; however, these file names must be globally unique > > APH> across all packages. > > > > Right and this is one problem with this solution. What#s your problem with > > my solution: docreg in /usr/doc/<foo>? > > Like I said: > (a) I don't really care that much > (b) any scheme *must* allow us to serve documents off other servers, > i.e., debian DDP web area > (c) all identifiers for documents *should* allow us to transition to a > URN scheme very easily, if not use that from the get-go I would add: (d) It would be a dot file then, and I hate dot files. (e) It is not documentation. > If you can restate your entire scheme for 'Identifier' and for docreg > file placement, and show how that addresses points (b) and (c), I will > adopt it. > > I#m missing the tags for adding new sections and their description. > > Yes, that's not part of the docreg spec per se. The DDH is a "SCHEME" > for our subject tree. (Other schemes, i.e., dewey decimal system, we > do not use). > > Marco is working on this. I'll probably help him with the definition ^^^^^ You mean "Marcus" here, don't you? > of the file format. It's pretty straight forward, it's not in a > standard format because there *are* no such standards AFAIK, and it > hasn't changed much. Maybe we can adopt some ideas from the docreg format (Adam, what about "Date" instead "Update" and other renamings?). Going to the next message, Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
