On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 21:34, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 15:11, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > As I write docs, e.g. my mirror-tutorial, I'm making stylistic decisions > > (i.e. self-editing). As I edit myself, I'm trying to make notes in my > > TODO for the eos-guide, which I hope will be incorporated in the > > eventual Style Guide. I'm hoping to do some major contribution to that > > guide, especially after having XML coded Strunk's book recently. > > > > If you notice a stylistic decision that you are making consciously as > > you write, whether you think it is glaringly obvious or not, please feel > > free to send me a note about it -- off-list please, since I'll have the > > TODO available at my repo if you would like to look at or add to it. See > > <http://svn.frields.org>* for more information; the TODO is in the > > eos-guide folder. > > > > I intend to use not just EOS, but also the GNOME Style Guidelines (which > > are licensed via the FDL), as source material for any work I can do on > > the Style Guide. If, perchance, anyone else has already started, I hope > > you'll consider this an offer of help. :-) > > Awesome offer, both to get the Style Guidelines[1] started, and to > collect style tips from all of us. I'll certainly send them. I'd also > argue that your interest and activity so far should let you be the > author/compiler of the Style Guidelines, at least initially. As much as > the Doc Guide, the Style Guidelines will require group and editorial > approval, so you will have to return to us for consensus on what you > create more than any other doc you are likely to work on. Thanks for the vote of confidence. As for passing everything back through the group, I wouldn't have it any other way! :-) > Once a style is set for a group, adherence to the style becomes the > goblin of the editors. Changing even a small rule about punctuation can > have big ramifications. We may want to consider that in terms of > keeping our rules light, meaningful, and standardized. > > [1] I'm trying the sound-out the idea of "Guidelines" instead of > "Guide". This way we can include outside resources by reference as part > of the guidelines, or just include sections of free sources like the > GNOME Style Guide (not Guidelines, I think) in their entirety. Right, it's GNOME Documentation Style Guide. Already showing my keen attention to detail, aren't I? ;-D > > *Umm, I have mentioned that repo a few times, and I hope (Karsten, this > > means you especially) that *someone* will say something if my doing so > > is a faux pas. I am fully aware that it's not part of the FDP, nor is it > > intended to be. It's only a nice way for me to work on this stuff at > > remote locations, until the One True CVS appears, but I also wanted > > editors and collaborators to be able to reach it too. > > I think the consensus so far is: > > * We don't want outside repositories or hosted draft documents to be > seen _at_all_ as official, supported, backed-up, unrootkitted, or > anything sources for FDP docs or SCM (software configuration ^^^^^ other than? (not nitpicking, just making sure I understand.) > management). > * We don't specifically recommend using personal hosting, but we do > mention it as an allowable part of the *writing* process (not the > *publishing* process) for FDP. > > In essence, what you are doing isn't much different than my hosting > stuff at people.redhat.com. Personally, I should be keeping all my > local work in local source control, anyway. :) I think I'm on the right side of both conscience and consensus then. I'll continue to direct people to my working drafts when appropriate, with a constant notation that anything found there is a work in progress. I will make it a point to mess with the ViewCVS templates to indicate same on the site. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
