Rogier Peters wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Le 22 oct. 04, à 12:23, David Crossley a écrit :
>>
> <snip/>
>
>> What's needed IMHO is the "big bag of docs with powerful search
>> functions" that we talked about before
>> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106586497031048&w=2
>> for example).
I like the idea, but let's make sure we end up with very usable URIs.
IMNSHO we *have* to have URIs of words, and not something like
/docs/foo/3446521.html. It's just not good. I propose we try to
"correctly" reorganize the docs before resorting to BBOD with crazy
URIs. I have some decent experience with organizing and reorganizing
site docs from previous jobs, so it can't be all that hard, can it? :)
>> If we agree on this, the next step would be to evaluate Forrest
>> against our needs and find out the simplest thing that would work.
>> Maybe Forrest using a live SVN repository, live Lucene indexing and
>> mod_cache in front would be all what we need?
Having "live docs" would be a boon to the documentation. The biggest
hurdle I face when I work on docs is the fact that I have to edit the
original xdocs, commit those, and (re- generating the site and
committing a second set. A live Forrest would be awesome.
> Although I agree completely that it's the accessability, not the quality
> of the documentation that is lacking, i can't help but hearing echoes of
> the GT cms-shootout ( bag of docs; heavy on search ).
> Why use forrest and not daisy or hippo?
>
> Rogier
Tony
|