[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: Changing of /doc/manuals/ implementation

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:45:17PM +0100, Rob Bradford wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 16:12, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Rob Bradford wrote:
> > > I'm proposing a new hierarchy for the /doc/manuals/ tree.

> Yes. That sucks doesnt it, i was hoping someone would suggest a clever
> solution. TBH i was kinda disappointed by the feedback i guess no one
> else has noticed that there is currently inconsistency in the way things
> are laid out now. See quick-reference in /en/

I noticed it and have been ranting on ML like you.  But I did not have
better idea.  So do not be disappointed but give us a good "workable"
technical proposal.  I will follow it.

By the way, what inconsistencies are you talking.  Missing link to the
"examples".  Or missing HTML (this must be).

For your information, 


these are 2 different documents (short and full length).

If apt-howto does the same, this directory will have apt-howto.txt.

> Joy thought someone else was working on improving this or something.
> Osamu was this you?

I want to but I have no clear answer.  That is why I asked Javier to
give me proposal.  He complained similar thing but his alternative had
similar flaw like yours.  Any "workable" suggestions from web expert
like you are most welcomed.

FYI: Current debiandoc-sgml defaults with no customization and renaming
creates as follows.


<locale>     = en, pt_BR
<web-locale> = en, pt-br

This is not useful for content negotiation.

Oh, lastly I found Susan who wrote debian-doc policy on debian-sgml
mailing list.  I sent mail to her about this archive structure question.

~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
        Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
 .''`.  Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
 : :' : http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ also http://qref.sf.net
 `. `'  "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract

Reply to: