Re^2: directory structure - 2.
Am 16.04.98 schrieb schwarz # monet.m.isar.de ...
CS> This sounds like a great idea! If noone else objects, please start
? I#ve posted already such a list.
CS> maintaining the list! If the list has evolved and is ready, it should
CS> become part of the doc-base documentation.
? No it should be part of the Policy or a free standard. This structure
will not only used by doc-base.
CS> I've included a first proposal of myself below. Note, that this is just my
CS> very personal opinion--feel free to change this if you don't like it.
Please remove the documents itself from the structure. They#re not
interesting for our discussion.
CS> 1. Most people seem agree that documents should to be registered in
CS> several sections at once. This should be considered when setting up the
Most people? Let#s stop this discussion. At first we should talk about the
structure and the file format. The use of the system should be discussed
CS> 2. For now, I think we should use the section titles in our list (like
I disagree. That#s confusing.
CS> make it much easier for us to recognize the correct section for a
We will not discuss the section for a document. This should be done by the
maintainers of these documents.
CS> document. If we've finally agreed on the section titles, we can look for
CS> the correct short terms later.
I prefer the other way.
CS> 3. If the structure has evolved, all online menu systems (dwww and dhelp)
CS> should use the same section titles, in order to avoid confusion among
CS> users who use both systems or who switch from one system to the other.
CS> 5. We should keep in mind that the structure should make it as simple as
CS> possible for the users to find the documentation their looking for.=20
CS> Ordering documents into categories like "howto", "faq", "magazines",
CS> "debian", etc. (categorized by source) is definitely *not* user friendly!=
I disagree 100%.
CS> 6. AFAIR, dhelp displays only `used' sections (i.e., sections which
CS> contain documents). I think, in general, it would be better if the online
CS> systems always display all available sections, even if these are empty, so
CS> that the user knows where to look for documentation next time.
I don#t understand that. We should a system display 30 directories that
don#t include one document? And this is not interesting for the structure.
CS> 7. I think it's useful to already include a few example documents in the
CS> structure to get a better feeling about what will go into which section.
CS> 8. We should keep in mind that the section titles will eventually be
CS> translated into the user's native language. But for now, we should stick
CS> to discuss the English titles.
The titles are not interesting. We#re talking about the structure and the
CS> language. I think the only logical way to handle this situation, is to
CS> store documents of all languages in a single structure, and let the user
CS> choose the preferred language at document-level, like in this example:
CS> User's Manuals
CS> Office applications
CS> _StarOffice User's Manual_ (English version, German version)
I disagree 100%.
CS> Debian's packaging system [admin/packaging]
Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.de Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org