I wonder if what we need is some standardised format for rev doc
webnotes?
Though I lke the idea of one centralised source/repository, it will
require someone to host it and maintain it, and though Andre (with
BvG Docu-webnotes), and others (with wikis, web-pages etc.) have
kindly shown willing to take this on, perhaps it will be more
realistic if the idea ever takes off (requiring potentially quite a
lot of space, bandwidth, and maintainence) to have these resources
distributed around any and all who want to contribute.
This might even be a suitable use for XML. Notes (or whatever we
choose to call an atom of information) could be in the form of a
comment on a dictionary entry, a scripting example, a how-to, a
tutorial or a link to a tutorial etc.. They could be served as web
sites, download repositories, or actual (self-updating?) stacks.
It would then be possible to make collections of these atoms, or
collections of links to these atoms. I don't see that it's strictly
necessary for it all to be integrated into the RunRev documentation,
though that's certainly possible (as in the BvG/Andre docs).
I think Andres' web-notes are a good starting point, with an author,
a UUID and content. Add a 'type identifier', and maybe some mechanism
for revisions.
Just a thought.
Best,
Mark
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
