[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > fantasai wrote: > > John Keiser wrote: > > > >>I personally think that the new doc review can be retroactive (i.e. > >>you post the new doc immediately but take it down if it sucks) but > >>I'm not excessively partial to the idea. > > > > I'd rather have review -before- the new doc is published to force some > > thought into the document's location and whether that URI will still > > make sense when the documentation is expanded. > > > > It's easy to move things around; the retroactive review would presumably > control the location of the document as well, and the reviewer could > move it to the new location.
If a problem with the location is not caught shortly after the document is added, it can't be easily moved. (You'll get broken links.) The problem with retroactive review for location is that unless the mistake in location is blatantly obvious, it probably won't get noticed until it's too late. If there's no review required for adding docs, then people will slap them up wherever it's convenient and we'll get something like the current mozilla.org directory structure. Right now mozilla.org depends almost entirely on in- content links for navigation, so it's not too much of a problem. If, however, we decided to have breadcrumb trails and other auto-generated links, the quality of the directory structure will directly affect navigation and hence, the website's usability. ~fantasai
