Just a suggestion.. but what if we look at a way for the viewer of the manual to choose their version of PHP and then see it as it related to that version then the issue of PHP3 etc and removed extensions etc is not an issue anymore and the manual can grow without confusion for the viewer.
Timothy Hitchens (HiTCHO) Open Source Consulting e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2003 10:55 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Friedhelm Betz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Suggestion for a clean PHP 5 - Manual > > > > > - removal of outdated extensions > > > > If the extension has been completely removed from the > > source tree, then yes it should be gone from the > > manual. Not sure if someone is keeping an archive of > > old manuals, just in case. > > I partially disagree with this. Simply removing > them is not the answer. I already stated various > reasons why in the archives and still on my TODO > is to adjust the RFC's on the subject (I promised > doing this). Look forward to a post on this subject, > I promise it'll be good :) > > An example is cybercash. This was removed yet still > people use it as the service still exists. Personally > I feel it should not have been removed but anyway > it was. Maybe some kind soul will put it in PECL. > Anyway, people still use these removed extensions and > people still link to these docs. We still have PHP3 > notes, why would we remove functionality that > existed just a few PHP versions back? I hope it's > not because of PDF generation ;) > > > If the extension is being deprecated then a note > > should be in the manual. So in the future when it gets removed > > completely, it will not take people by surprise. > > aspell is like this. But really, does the php-dev > team give any warning? Not usually :) > > > > - moving parts to PECL, the extions in question > > > > That will go as fast as the restructuring of the PEAR documentation > > system goes. There is a new (peardoc2) structure/system, so as the > > extensions migrate over to PECL (ideally) the maintainer or someone > > from phpdoc or peardoc can do the move and (if needed) conversion. > > > > For what I've seen of the peardoc2, it is not too > > dissimilar from the old phpdoc, perhaps some of the > > phpdoc gurus can subscribe to the peardoc list and > > talk about reorganizing the preadoc2's PECL bits to > > match the structure from the current phpdoc? > > As discussed in the archives, this move won't be as > easy as mv phpdoc/{ext} pear/pecl/{ext} as there are > BC concerns with broken links being one. But this > can be addressed and will. > > > > - restructering (see manual.xml in RFC) > > > > +1 on that one, it will make the manual more readable, > > and better organized > > Nice. Finally bug #17164 will get closed :) > > > > - spiliiting in devekopers and user manual (or > > > whatever names we would choose) > > > > I think it was "Developer" and "User". And yes +1 on > > that. > > Sounds good. I believe the developers manual will > remain in english only. > > Regards, > Philip > > > -- > PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
