couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB new docs proposal
Date Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:05:44 GMT
Sure.

Well, I'd like to link to the docs from the website. And some amount of
basic typesetting would be nice. HTML is the bare minimum if we want text
(obviously) and hyperlinks. I think hyperlinks would be useful. Even if
it's only so we can use anchors.

If you look at the source of the CouchDB book, we could strip HTML down to
its barest elements. The "administrative debris" like navigation, style,
etc can be added with a single common JavaScript file and a single common
CSS file.

If we want to move forward with this, I am happy to drive the effort.

Our first steps should be:

   - Get some plain text only documentation together from the committers

   - Speak to Infra about how to host the documentation

If someone can co-ordinate the first point, I can take this stuff and shape
it in to some basic HTML for us to use.

I can take care of the second item.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:

> Noah: All I really mean is that the docs/ are widely available. If
> it's infeasible to push them to the wiki then let's not do it, but I'd
> be surprised if that's a technical challenge for a group with our
> diverse superpowers.
>
> As for choice of markup language, I have no preference. What's the
> minimum here? Do we need more than just plain text? The linux kernel's
> Documentation/ dir seems to get away with it.
>
> B.
>
> On 26 November 2011 19:47, Dave Cottlehuber <dave@muse.net.nz> wrote:
> > On 26 November 2011 14:25, Robert Dionne <dionne@dionne-associates.com>
> wrote:
> >> +1 for Latex
> >
> > Hi Robert, all,
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to read all that!
> >
> > Specific design & tools aside, are you willing to support at least the
> > principle of upgrading/improvement of the documentation?
> >
> > Or are you fundamentally against docbook? Personally, I am agnostic on
> > the tool but I would like to know that I can contribute something that
> > won't require rework in future, and I'll happily learn tool X to
> > support that.
> >
> > I see little point in counting a few +1 votes and then making
> > wholesale changes; this should be a consensus otherwise I'd rather
> > revert to incremental changes to the wiki.
> >
> > A+
> > Dave
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message