> Ok, time for me to jump in here (perhaps as the `information architect'
> which someone was asking for earlier:-).
>
> To have separate hierarchies for `docs' at all is meaningless. With the
> exception of binaries and stuff, everything on a Web site *is* documentation.
Hmmm... that's sort-of true. The Mozilla Users Guide (to be written) seems
more obviously a "doc" than the list of component owners.
> > There are never going to be separate releases of the different apps,
> > because they are all UIs to the same framework.
>
> You can't know that. That is how the Mozilla suite has worked from
> mid-1999 to the present. It was not how Mozilla worked before mid-1999,
> and it may not be how Mozilla works after 2002.
>
> It is quite possible, for example, that the Mozilla base (networking,
> layout engine, XP Toolkit, etc) will be turned into a number of
> libraries which individual Mozilla applications can then link to.
Indeed. Absolutely. But all these parts are already under /projects, which
is designed for this sort of thing. My objection was to his justification
for the existence of the /software directory (see the comments at the
bottom of the file).
> Having a /projects hierarchy makes about as much sense as having a /docs
> hierarchy. Given enough mindless advocacy, anything could be considered
> a `project'.
Again, true.
I'm now leaning more towards having a single top-level directory for each
"project". But then we need to decide what additional top-level
directories we need for information which applies to the whole
organisation (such as hacking docs etc.)
<sigh> Why is this stuff never easy?
Gerv
