Mauricio Hernandez wrote: > <SNIP> > >>I don't have strong feelings either way, but ultimately on this one, >>I think my vote goes to Henrik. I believe that the number of people >>actually creating pages in the Accessibility tree will remain relatively >>small, and wiki-savvy. The number of people editing might be larger, >>but then folks who are re-organizing can clean up after bad edits that >>link incorrectly, yes? > > Yes Kevin, if we are only considering linkingin the universe of > Accessibility wiki pages, sure, supages is the best choice. > > But let's focus on the example where AbiWrod or Abiword (doesn't > matter for the example) is an applications that can effectibly work > very good for the a11y team editors. If you use Abiword on some pages > and want to make it to work as a link, then you should/will have to > check and make sure that is a non-existing page in all the /data dir. > > If you don't check /data dir pages first and proceed to create the > Abiword page (cited on you page), all the other 'WantedPages' citing > Abiword will still be wanting an Abiword page because thay will not > know you just created the Abiword page the need. > > (ooops, it is more difficult to express than i thought)
Ah! I see what you mean now, I think. And without some sort of administrative batch tool that allow someone to report/review/resolve such situations, it could get ugly quickly. So in order for something like this to work well, a tool for page creators that automatically searches every- where, and a tool for clean-up crew to resolve mismatches would be needed... I still like the idea of the sub-page tree, but I see it's a bigger problem than I first thought. -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
