On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 14:14 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > A lot of this discussion about organization is a bit pointless. Remember, > to the user browsing around, the pages are connected in a WEB, not a TREE, > so trying to figure out what directory structure to use is not worth a > discussion - someone needs to pick a directory structure and go with it. The point was not to obscure that fact, but simply to provide directions for people who will participate in the publication process. It's very easy to end up with a structure (however well-linked) that becomes harder for publishers to deal with. As a side effect, if there is any future automation possibilities for this process, good planning might make that work a little easier later. Anyway, you're well aware of that part, so I'm not preaching to you as much as explaining to other onlookers. :-) > The issue that does deserve collective attention is making sure that each > page has appropriate links to build the right navigational structure for > users. The filesystem directory structure only affects the web structure > if you let it :-) Sure. And that's why we should have, for example, index pages by FC version, by guide title, and -- if we ever get enough documents to make this worthwhile! -- by subject area. My only purpose in raising the issue was to try and get agreement on where to put things so that it remains easy for people entering the process to figure it out, even when we have lots more docs. The people using it today may not always be here, after all! (Although I've heard some people say that they are considering one of those little subcutaneous tracking devices for Elliot.) ;-D -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
