On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 14:56, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > These two tutorials still contain some atrocious style and syntax and > desperately need some rewriting. Also, I am not familiar with all the > subject matter, and would prefer that a more knowledgeable person test > the content to make sure it's valid. In the absence of a Style Guide, I > can't really demand that anyone take up the banner for these pieces > (even the original submitters), but if anyone's willing to have a go at > them, it would be appreciated. I'll have a go at improving them Paul, if its style. Karsten, did you have a 'techie' review in your process document? <scenario> Somebody such as me has written a piece. I think its great. I don't realise that my xyz is way out different from the majority. Needed. A geek to read a piece with a wider view, to pick up oddities. E.g. This morning I realised that the author had 'assumed' that root had a different prompt from 'userX'. This may|may not be typical. I 'judged' it a weak assumption. -- Regards DaveP. XSLT&Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
