Ralph Goers wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Same concerns as Ugo. We should IMO document 2.1 and use specially
labelled sections and pages for what's different in 2.2. We could also
uses Daisy branches, but I don't think it's a good idea to start a
multi-branch effort right now.
I agree with this also.
- once the wiki is "processed" (i.e. all documentation is (re)moved), it
will only serve as a scratchpad, either for random thoughts/proposals or
for users that want to offer documentation but have no editor rights in
the Daisy site. I.e. the content of the wiki should be kept as small as
possible and deprecated information should be removed as soon as
possible.
Same concerns as Leszek: writing docs in the wiki would really make
non-editors feel like second-class citizen. Additionally to leaving
comments, we may allow registered users with no particular rights to
edit documents belonging to a "scratchpad" collection, distinct from
the main document collection. That will allow us to quickly move
around good contributions to the main area and also educate editor
wannabees to the CMS features.
Here I have to disagree with you. I don't think that all the content
that is on the Wiki should necessarily find its way to the :"formal"
documentation. I think the wiki serves that purpose well. It allows
I do not propose to give access do editing formal documentation. Daisy
has got a nice feature of several "sites" in one CMS. Let's make a
scratchpad site that allows users to enter their experiences there.
users a place to document things that they have learned which may not
have a good place in the formal documentation.
What kind of documentation, faq, recipe, howto is not suitable for
formal documentation? Every piece of someones writing can be:
- pointed out to have an existing docs entry
- processed and incorporated into formal docs somehow (I do not mean 1:1
here)
- rejected because of quality issues
So, just because users
can't directly update the formal documentation I don't think they will
feel like second class citizens. I think they'd be quite surprised if
they could update the formal documentation. And actually, I think they
would be quite pleased and honored if whatever they wrote was moved from
the wiki into the formal docmentation by an editor.
I really don't see this as much different than how things are with the
code. Users can write patches and submit them to bugzilla or they can
post code snippets on the wiki, but they cannot update svn.
I see an analogy but I keep my opinion:
- it will be much more appealing to users to post snippets to CMS scratchpad
- reviewing things and putting them live will happen using the same
tools as for formal documentation (who will want to convert wiki markup
-> html code?)
- Most of all: we will have one documenatation source instead of 2. Even
if something is in scratchpad people may want to look for it and use it.
We could provide special search queries for formal documents only and
one that would include awaiting documents.
--
Leszek Gawron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
