cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From hepabolu <>
Subject Re: [docs] regenerated website; why extra docs?
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:14:28 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Today i re-generated the website
> which incorporates a few changes to the Daisy sources,
> fixes some links that used local hrefs, removes the
> old ApacheCon logo.
> There were some new documents generated which do not
> have any mapping in the navigation. Does someone know
> what should happen with them? ...
> 372.html
> 378.html
> 400.html
> 592.html
> 692.html
> 693.html
> 695.html
> 696.html
> 697.html
> 698.html
> 699.html
> 700.html
> 701.html
> 702.html
> 703.html
> 704.html
> 705.html
> 706.html
> 726.html
> 728.html
> 748.html
> 749.html
> -David

I haven't thoroughly checked all of them, but I think they are newly 
created and should be part of the "official documentation" rather than 
the "legacy documentation".

 From my POV (and IIRC there was consensus on this), the site should contain the documentation for the current 
release (2.1.8) which is basically the "legacy documentation".

New documentation for new releases should go into the "official 
documentation". However, nobody has decided yet on a structure for that 
collection nor for the subsequent structure of the navigation as it goes 

So I suggest that for now you ignore the newly created files when 
website is re-generated.

Someone (me, the authors, or someone else) has to go through these 
files, and decide on the following:

1. do they describe something that is part of the next upcoming 2.1.X 
- Yes: add them to the navigation menu in the "legacy documentation" at 
an appropriate place and give them a "name" in that menu.
- No: see next step.

2. do they describe something that is part of the next 2.2/3.0 release?
- Yes: make sure they are part of the "official documentation" collection.
- No: see next step.

3. are they random thoughts, wild ideas, parking places for unfinished 
- Yes: mark them as such, they should not be exported as documentation
- No: should it really be there? Can't it be deleted?

That leaves us with the decision on the navigation structure of the 
2.2/3.0 documentation. It was already decided that the navigation in 
Daisy should be targeted towards editors (i.e. simplify their work), 
while the "official" navigation could be entirely different. Maybe we 
should use the Daisy books definition for the navigation structure of 
the website to take advantage of the query-based navigation 
possibilities (or are they not present in books definitions?).


Bye, Helma

View raw message