> > Oh, indeed. Bugzilla's playing up again, so I can't look at your bug,
> > but I would contest the assertion that www.mozilla.org/ needs to be
> > the default start page at all. As long as we maintain its other aims,
> > it will always be a bad start page for a browser.
>
> It's not mozilla.org's job to provide a portal-like start page for
> Mozilla Navigator.
Sorry, that's what I thought you were saying.
> An attractive <http://mozilla.org/>, which makes it easy for visitors to
<snip>
Oh, yeah, sure. <me gets wrong end of stick again>
> > I don't seem to be able to reach this. My browser just sits there
> > "Contacting critique.net.nz..."
>
> Worksforme.
Yes, got it now. Anyway, you emailed me this :-)
> > I was talking about your "developer info" section. Most of the stuff
> > under /quality now is directly analogous to that.
>
> `Developer info' is for when you're already involved. It would include
> testcases, testing tools, etc for QA people, linked from the relevant
> functional and UI specs for the programming people.
But QA people aren't "developers" (in the normally-understood sense of the
word.) So their stuff shouldn't be under "developer info". Quality is a
top-level directory at the moment, and it works well there.
> Now that I'm already involved in QA and know what I'm doing, I never
> look at the QA pages at all.
See Asa's comment. And I use them all the time.
> > Well, then, let's call it "doc", as a contraction of documentation.
> > But if you look at the source distribution of any software, there is a
> > particular class of manual-like texts which are found in a subdir
> > "docs". Most people understand what is meant.
> >...
>
> mozilla.org is not a software distribution. mozilla.org is a Web site.
Yes. And a subset of pages that it contains are documentation for software
(in the above sense.) So, if we have a top-level dir "software", and
subdirs for e.g. "Bugzilla", it should have a subdir "docs".
Gerv
