Re: "Section" in *.doc-base file.
FYI, I have made your summary into a bug against doc-base, which I'm
CC'ing here. If people can be sure to CC the bug this in the
discussion, I'll get a copy of the discussion.
Yoshito Komatsu <yoshito.komatsu@nifty.com> writes:
> At present, most of *.doc-base files in my PC
> seems to be located in sections according to menu-policy.
> "We should make doc-base policy keeping the present state",
> this is one idea.
[...]
> But, some people think it's a mistake to make "Apps" a category
> and we should think separately from menu-policy
> because they think menu-policy isn't suitable to search
> for documentation.
> They make another draft, this is another idea.
> Which idea shoud we take?
I would suggest strictly following the menu structure for now.
I have some ideas about a more flexible subject structure. We really
need something like a "subject authority list" -- massively simpler
say than the Library of Congress one, but I don't see why we can't
lift some ideas from there.
The biggest question in my mind is whether package maintainers and add
to the structure or not. I am thinking, "yes". Sure, that will
dilute the structure a bit and possibly lead to redundant things and
problems, but I like how it opens up and devolves maintenance duties
to the Debian package maintainers.
Anyhow, I do already have a provision doc-base structure, defined as
structured text (probably should be XML or even RDF). It's been lying
fallow for about 2 years now -- ever since I've gotten involved in the
boot-floppies, all my time has been sucked up. However, with Woody's
release, I'm giving up Debian install system duties and I hope to
rework the whole doc-base so that we have a coherent and worthy conept
of a document storage system, which can be treated as data and burst
out into many forms: HTML pages, bookmarks, XML, whatever.
If anyone wants to contribute I can give out CVS access to the
doc-base area, which is managed on cvs.debian.org.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: