The problem with a collaborative approach to writing Tapestrys official
documenation is that every contribution has to be made intentionally and
prove of this intention has to be provided. For committers that means
signing a CLA. The same would hold for documentation contributors. We
can't just have everyone write the official documentation. And if you
drop point c) and the truely collaborative part, you and up with a wiki
like confluence.
Uli
Renger Wilde schrieb:
I really like the collaborative, componentized documentation development
concepts advocated at Christophe Cordenier's http://wookicentral.com/demo/
Wooki site. The powerful concepts he's got include:
a. Easy collaborative drafting and editing of a componentized, modular
document (wiki-style)
b. Generate PDF on-demand
c. Written in Tapestry
I also strongly agree that we should separate out reference documentation
that can be auto-generated (e.g. Javadoc and the like) from best-practice,
how-to, and examples documentation. They are two completely different beasts
- with different committers (skills, tools, needs) and different
content-sources (meta-data in source files .vs. stuff in people's brains)
and different user needs (reference .vs. big-picture process, general
concepts, how-tos, examples).
These concept-driven documentation types are the ones most sorely missing
from the Tapestry world, and that, in my opinion, is where the focus of the
next documentation effort should be. Why? Because that lack is currently the
single biggest impediment to expanding Tapestry's market share (and vitality
as a product) that we currently face.
I recognize that Christophe's product is in its early stages of development,
but I see substantial promise in his work, and I encourage all of us to give
it a look. He's come a great big long way in a few short months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
