On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:05 +0200, Nino Novak wrote:
> 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.
I have been thinking about the pros and cons of a new doc set vs "new in
3.4" info in the same chapter, but I have not had time to read up on
just what has changed from 3.3.x to 3.4.x. Sometimes relatively minor
functional differences mean that fields are moved from one dialog box to
another, or the names of things change, or other changes are made that
are difficult to handle clearly in a single file. Other times, what you
suggest works well.
When I've had time to look at the changes, I'll have something less
vague to say on the subject.
--Jean
--
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
