Am Dienstag, 2. August 2011, um 11:41:36 schrieb David Nelson:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > AFAIK, unless the filenames are different between the 3.3.x and
> > 3.4.x versions of a chapter, they cannot both be stored on the
> > wiki. Whatever is the latest upload will overwrite the other.
>
> Ah... yes... I'd overlooked that. Hmmmm, well, maybe we could just
> add a summary differentiation, e.g. GS34-ChapterTitle.odt rather
> than 0101GS34-ChapterTitle.odt, because the 0101 means nothing to
> me, and there's a lot of useful, explicit information we could store
> in the meta data... We could add tags to mark up the particular
> subjects that get mention in a given document, for instance.
>
> What do you think about the general principle of preferring the meta
> data as a medium of storing info rather than file names?
For working, it's imho often easier to have all needed meta info in the
file name as you can quickly see whitch version you have downloaded.
For end users the file name should be kept as simple as possible but not
missing *important* info. If you really intend to offer a complete set
of new documents for each minor version step, the version info should go
into the file name.
If only major versions are to be fully reflected in the documentation,
there is no need to put version info into the file name (as there are
several years in between them). Minor versions should then be reflected
by e.g. in-chapter-icons ("available since LibO 3.4" or similar).
In my eyes, the latter seems more reasonable, but I'm not involved in
the (English) Doc team work.
Again, my 2ยข
Nino
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
