fantasai wrote:
>...
> I think the structure before the date (at least before the year)
> should be minimal, which isn't the case with
> http://mozilla.org/events/mozilla.party/1999/.
Any particular reason? (Normally I imagine it would be, but not in the
case of a regular thing such as mozilla.party.)
> Is http://mozilla.org/news/1999/events/mozilla.party/ acceptable?
No, because the parties have more to do with each other than they have
to do with other events in the same year.
> Also, is there a reason why you chose numbers as opposed to
> names for the months?
Three reasons, in descending order of importance: conciseness,
internationalization, and alphabetical sorting in FTP listings.
> Where would you put general articles--that is, informational
> articles that aren't particularly dated? (Something like a
> National Geographic article, which is not news yet relevant to
> the time though not any particular date.) Under the release date?
If the article was a useful part of a larger knowledge base, then it
would go in its relevant section (e.g.
<http://mozilla.org/developer/web/style/alternate.stylesheets/>). As I
said, most items in the `News & Events' section would actually be links
to new/updated documents in other sections.
Otherwise, an article would go in the news/ hierarchy under its year and
month hierarchies.
>...[`Mozilla Developer' section]
>
> | Not just guidelines, but all documents relating to these aspects of
> | the development of Mozilla (what some people are referring to as
> | `projects').
>
> So, what do you refer to as 'projects'?
I don't. Like I said, given enough hype, anything within Mozilla could
be referred to as a `project'. It's a more or less meaningless
categorization.
>...
> Also, would you post a short description of each of the Mozilla
> development categories? I'm having trouble imagining what sorts
> of things would go in each.
The ones I posted were just examples. Most of the documents currently
linked to from <http://mozilla.org/docs/> (from the `Core Mozilla
architecture' section onwards) would end up in the `Developer' >
`Mozilla Developer' section.
>...
> | I think it would be easier for people looking for this stuff to
> | find it starting from a single place, rather than having to go into
> | separate areas for each application.
>
> Logically or physically? IMO, the documents should physically go under
> their respective release directories--that includes the web address.
> But a general support page can tie these up with links.
Nothing wrong with that in itself -- but it would have to be possible
for people to do a search of all the documents linked to from the
`Support' section (e.g., search for the phrase `security hole') without
the search returning documents from other sections. If they weren't
under the same (either) directory or URL hierarchy, this would be
considerably more difficult to set up.
>...
> | > Where do community-related things go?
> | > - newsgroups/mailing lists
> |
> | Generally, under the Get Involved section. Specifically, under the
> | relevant Developer (or Support) sections.
>
> Developer > Mozilla > Get Involved > Community is a bit much, I think.
>...
It's not. It's `Get Involved' > `Discussion groups'. The URL would be
<http://mozilla.org/contribute/discussion/>.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
