On 13 May 2005, at 17:44, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Problem is, ATM I don't think anyone has a sizeable chunk of
up-to-date consistent content to contribute. I'd love to be proven
wrong though.
If someone could come up with that (in any structured format - we do
conversions don't we?), I'd be
[Originally sent pnly to Daisy list in error, did,'t realise the
original mail had been cross posted]
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
...
In perfect do-ocracy, who makes it work first, gets my vote. :-)
I'm not sure it's enough to get your vote as there is still more to do,
but I
On 12 May 2005, at 17:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
But it's also true that editing xml files in a svn repository sucks as
an editing tool. Using wiki (or daisy or other solutions) is much
better.
I like the notion of
daisy - forrest - out
makes very good sense.
It does, yet there's obvious
Steven Noels wrote:
...
What do people think?
I think that we need people that write documentation, not a tool.
I'll think about it again when we have 10 doc writers sending patches
and files that we are not able to manage.
For now converting all documentation files to plain html and adding a
Steven Noels wrote:
On 12 May 2005, at 17:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
But it's also true that editing xml files in a svn repository sucks
as an editing tool. Using wiki (or daisy or other solutions) is much
better.
I like the notion of
daisy - forrest - out
makes very good sense.
It does,
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
...
What do people think?
I think that we need people that write documentation, not a tool.
I'll think about it again when we have 10 doc writers sending patches
and files that we are not able to manage.
We'll never have 10 doc writers without tools
On 13 May 2005, at 12:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
...
What do people think?
I think that we need people that write documentation, not a tool.
Of course, that's why I'm suggesting to take a look at the low-hanging
fruit.
I'll think about it again when we have 10 doc writers
On 13 May 2005, at 12:30, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
IMO the problem is more political or sentimental than technical.
Yes, and that's why I won't push. But I'm feeling our pain.
Note that I don't question the value of Daisy nor the good intentions
of you OT folks, but I want to point out the
Steven Noels wrote:
...
Again, I'm not pushing - consider me a dis-interested, yet friendly
party. I'm quite convinced though that documentation committers are
currently passively discouraged by the patch/mail mechanism.
Remember what started the Cocoon Wiki? Content (Leigh Dodds) + platform
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
On 12 May 2005, at 17:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
But it's also true that editing xml files in a svn repository sucks
as an editing tool. Using wiki (or daisy or other solutions) is much
better.
I like the notion of
daisy - forrest - out
makes very
Steven Noels wrote:
On 12 May 2005, at 17:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
But it's also true that editing xml files in a svn repository sucks as
an editing tool. Using wiki (or daisy or other solutions) is much better.
I like the notion of
daisy - forrest - out
makes very good sense.
It does, yet
Le 13 mai 05, à 12:36, Steven Noels a écrit :
...I'm quite convinced though that documentation committers are
currently passively discouraged by the patch/mail mechanism...
Sounds right.
But there is another part of our docs which is still incomplete: the
autogenerated reference docs, created
Steven Noels wrote:
On 12 May 2005, at 17:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
But it's also true that editing xml files in a svn repository sucks as
an editing tool. Using wiki (or daisy or other solutions) is much better.
I like the notion of
daisy - forrest - out
makes very good sense.
It does, yet
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
...
What do people think?
I think that we need people that write documentation, not a tool.
I can hardly disagree more.
I wrote my blog *before* I wrote its posts. Without it, I could have
written them by hand, but god, that always made me go nah.
I think that we need people that write documentation, not a tool.
I can hardly disagree more.
I wrote my blog *before* I wrote its posts. Without it, I could have
written them by hand, but god, that always made me go nah.
MDR ! This discussion is really funny. No offense guys but I feel
Sebastien Arbogast wrote:
I think that we need people that write documentation, not a tool.
I can hardly disagree more.
I wrote my blog *before* I wrote its posts. Without it, I could have
written them by hand, but god, that always made me go nah.
MDR ! This discussion is really funny. No offense
What we need is simplicity in the workflow.
Simplify the workflow, tuning the simplicity to those people that are
more likely to write, and content will start flowing in (as the wiki
shows very well).
Sebastien, this is not a funny discussion. Those who think that Word is
always more
Sebastien Arbogast wrote:
What we need is simplicity in the workflow.
Simplify the workflow, tuning the simplicity to those people that are
more likely to write, and content will start flowing in (as the wiki
shows very well).
..
So I think that there is a third criteria we have to integrate in
18 matches
Mail list logo
