Matthew Thomas wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >...
> > Create docs/end-user and docs/web-developer. Use docs/end-user instead
> > of software/mozilla/docs - then all projects can have end-user docs.
> > The remove the docs/software symlink.
> >
> > I think that we should centralise, under /docs, all documentation
> > except that which is (dev-specific && project-specific), which goes in
> > project_name/docs.
>
> 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.
I recognize that, which is why both software and projects are symlinked
under /docs. However, as many people will identify them as top-level, they
exist there, too. There's no reason why you can't have both, so to all
intents and purposes besides physical file storage, I put both.
The exception also applies to publications such as editorials; unless you
get technical to the extreme (which most people don't except for the sake
of argument) they are not documentation--just documents. Also the search
form, the main page of the site, and various other paraphernalia. Hence
the docs directory.
At any rate, if you have a better plan, or any specific improvements, do post.
One can only work with so much abstraction.
> > There may be separate
> > releases of different components, such as the JS engine, but they are
> > all under /projects anyway.
> >
> > And I maintain that /projects is the "place for software released by
> > mozilla.org."
> >...
>
> Having a /projects hierarchy makes about as much sense as having a /docs
> hierarchy. Given enough mindless advocacy, anything could be considered
> a `project'.
And why not, if the files are useful and you're willing to maintain them?
~fantasai
