Lyno Sullivan wrote: > > [...] > I began by wondering, would it be possible, or even sensible, to use the > FAQ-o-matic approach that would let people add definitions via the web? I > am not obliquely volunteering to write the Dict-o-matic software, maybe > later. Assuming suitable software doesn't exist, let me propose how I would > handle this if it were mine to do now.
There are several interrelated problems here. All need not be solved immediately. Here's a try: gathering: use faq-o-matic, a new top level section for dictionary, it allows anybody to contribute and gives implicit structure distribution: faq-o-matic again, until something better is devised, it is available on the web, has links to cvs (somebody said) and does most of its administration automagically packaging and delivery in the Debian distribution: let's think about it ... later This way it would be up and running quickly, easy to handle and would not commit anybody to any design decisions we would like to change when we see how it is shaping up. This would buy us time to think while getting experience (and those words). > [...] > SEPARATE FILES > > Putting all this together and we start to get a very big file. If the file > gets too big people won't have the patience to download it, to lookup a > simple word. That got me to thinking that one file wasn't a smart way to go. > > I wonder if we wouldn't be smarter to put all the definitions into a > directory, with each definition in its own file. This approach has the > advantage that it simplifies the issue of languages and clarifies the > matter of the GNU/Linux dictionary, the Debian Dictionary, etc. Let me > explain. > > SEPARATE DICTIONARY OVERLAY > > Let's assume that the user wants to build a final run-time Dictionary. > > [...] These are intriguing questions, but I think we could put them to background priority for a while. t.aa
