Re^4: directory structure - 2.
Am 17.04.98 schrieb srivasta # datasync.com ...
Moin Manoj!
MS> Marco> ? I#ve posted already such a list.
MS> And there were objections to it, which have not been resolved.
Ok, again. This list is a suggestion. If you#ve additional directories,
then add them and post the list again. The whole discussion is useless
without facts and suggestions.
MS> Why shouyld we stop this discussion? You are the only one
MS> objecting, and you have really come up with no technical reasons
MS> apart from "I do not like it", which, frankly, does not cut it.
Because it#s not easy to find *real* arguments for one or the other
solution. This is more a feeling. That#s why I would suggest that we start
with the structure itself. Maybe it#s good to add *some* documents to more
than one section. But if I say some I mean some and not 50%!
MS> How can we come up with a structure before deciding on whether
MS> we should or should not allows multiple listings?
Maybe the package maintainer should decide if we use only one or more
entries. Such things like that could be changed in the future very easy.
That#s no problem. We need a file format and one structure now.
MS> Why am I getting the feeling that you are objecting for the
MS> sake of objecting? I do not think that this is conducive to a
MS> cooperative design.
That#s nonsense. I#m really interested in good ideas and I#ve said that I
will support "our" format and structure. That#s no question. But I don#t
like it that some persons are only interested in their solution.
MS> Without reasons, that matters little. As a user, I care little
The reason is very simple, as user I would search for a HOWTO, a magazine
section and so on. If I#m searching the Installation HOWTO, I would never
look under admin/installation. 90% of our users know the word HOWTO.
MS> Why should I care whther this is a ``user'' activity or a
MS> ``admin'' activity?
Right, but user and admin were *not* my suggestions! I#ve used them,
because Christian and some others like it. Please, if you don#t like it,
post another solution with an example.
MS> I think I like the example documents, for that helps make the
MS> dry language of a standard more easily accesible. I would be lost in
I agree that the standard for the maintainers should include examples, but
do we need them for this discussion? I don#t think so.
MS> the document tree shall have a skeletal look. Also, until we have all
MS> documents all cross translated, a multilingual user shall have to
MS> search all possible languages until they hit the language tree that
MS> has the documentation. It is frustrating to look in German first
MS> since there are fewer documents there, and then go to english;
As German I don#t think so. Take for example the HOWTOs. As German user I
would install doc-linux-html and doc-linux-de. But not all translations
use the same name! If you mix both packages in one page this will be very
confusing. Do you agree?
And do you think, that for example an English user would be interested in
German documents? Take for example my fidogate package. It includes two
documents, that are not avaibly in English.
Maybe the idea is not bad, but in some cases it#s not perfect.
MS> This works even if I am looking at docs using a fvwm menu, or
MS> a simple non-locally-cross-indexed HTML tree.
MS>
MS> See?
Yes. But remember this is not very important for our standard. We#ve
agreed, that we add a "Language: " tag to our file format. The
presentation is not part of the standard.
I think I will add both ways to dhelp. The admin could choice the best
solution for his users. Ok?
cu, Marco
--
Uni: Budde@tu-harburg.de Fido: 2:240/5202.15
Mailbox: mbudde@hqsys.antar.com http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: