On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Mark Pratt wrote:
If the idea is to deliver the message that Zope 3 is great,
clutting the message with Zope 2 cruft (not the same as if we
have some really great zope 2 documentation, but what's there
has rotted quite a bit) is not likely to help. Maybe we can (and
should) get there too, but let's not bite off more than we can
chew the first iteration. The *worst* thing we can do is launch
a new site that has all the old sites' problems. :)
As attractive the idea may be of everyone switching to Zope 3
right away -- it is essential that the thousands of Zope 2.x
server out their still receive some kind of documentation support.
So while it may be true that the documentation is out of date --
this should then be a priority to do a "final" update of the 2.x
docs and then focus on all things Zope 3.
Legacy Zope apps are going to be around for the next 3 to 10 years.
I've tried to write the 'brochure' content of the new zope.org to
include both Zope 2 and Zope 3 in a coherent story. I think this
can be done - review the text already there. My idea is to deliver
the message that Zope is great. It comes in two flavors and they're
Besides brochure-style information, I'm less confident about
presenting up to date documentation on Zope 2, however. If we get
people to edit the Zope 2 documentation for inclusion, then I'm all
for it. I have my doubts that we'll get enough community interest
in doing so however, but I'd love to be wrong about that.
The resulting website will depend on whether we get people do the
In my experience quality editing (because its tedious) is not
something that community work excels at.
Is this something that we should try to collect money for? (To then
pay an experienced editor to go through the text).
Zope-web maillist - Zopefirstname.lastname@example.org