On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote:
> I like the new organization, but think the alpha listing is
> also worthwhile.
Why? What does it offer that directives.html does not?
(ie. In what circumstances would someone have to spend a non-trivial
amount of extra time searching for something because the alpha listing
was removed?)
> How about putting them into core-toc.html and
> core-toc-alpha.html or equivalent, then linking to the actual
> explanations?
Not a bad idea. core.html is big enough that breaking it up could be
okay. However, I still don't see the benefit to all this. The costs
I have outlined in my previous email.
> I also think it would be nice to have the relevant
> stuff connected. Currently, when reading up on things, I do a lot of
> cross-referencing across the whole core doc (by far the one I spend
> the most time in); it would be nice to have the likely
> cross-references in the same document....
Hmmm... Yes, cross-references are good. Wouldn't it be better to
include these as "See also" listings in the actual directive definitions?
That way, the cross-references would be there no matter how you get
to the directives. Could you give some examples of what type of
cross-references you are thinking about?
By the way, welcome to the list, and thanks for your feedback.
Joshua.
|