On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 21:02 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > On 11/04/07, Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 12:07 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > > > ...in navigation structure but is present in contents. Is there a > > > reason for this or is it a mistake?! > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you point out where this > > is happening? > > I went ahead and fixed it. The problem was that the links at the > bottom of each page, to go forward and back, skipped connecting to the > internet - but it was present in the contents...does that make any > more sense than what I said before!? Ah, I see. I think those links can be an exception to the rule of "make all links full URLs". The reasons are: * The navigation construct is Wiki-only; it doesn't get translated into anything meaningful in the XML-side. That is, you can see a table like the table we made, but in DocBook, the navigation is built automagically. * The links in DocBook need to be <xref>, that is, an internal cross-reference link. Full URLs are translated to <ulink> tags, which are external URI-based and not built automagically. > > > Screenshots for that page are > > > currently in spanish as well. > > > > screenshots-- are evil :) > > > > I think those were placeholders, but the situation speaks to the > > problems of screenshots. > > So is the policy to avoid screenshots?! We do have some directions about them: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/documentation-guide/s1-screenshots.html I threw this out recently: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2007-March/msg00161.html I think they are much more trouble than the are worth. In fact, they are a bit of a PITA. IMO, it's a self-perpetuating problem that people expect screenshots, so we provide them. I also think good writing stands fine without screenshots. And diagrams are definitely different, which any good screenshot can become; they are a PITA, too, but can be worth it. But this is really just my opinion. I'm not here to say, "Me professional, me say, this best way!" In fact, the best way is what the community of readers wants *and* needs. It is our job to give them what they need, even if they don't know they need it; and to address their wants. I think we must tune our decisions to our Fedora audience, even if I personally don't like it. There is a (constantly shifting) balance here, somewhere. This is why I've been trying to spark discussion ... and consensus ... on these style decisions. There are standards, there are opinions, and there is the Fedora Content Way. It is the latter that we need to define and stick with. And it shouldn't be just Paul, Patrick, and me making all these decisions -- unless you all want it that way. ;-D > One thing I thought about the > DUG, which maybe is better in a different thread, was that the > description talks about it being "task orientated" but some of the > sections felt a bit thin on the ground in that respect - is this the > kind of concept material to be pushed to other docs?! +1 Yes, this was discussed a bit in some other threads, and is in fact an external complaint we have received. It's all right, that's the way open content goes - you push it out the door, fix bugs, and push it out again. Mr. Babich -- Maybe we should open the DesktopReferenceGuide? Or a better name? You all can start moving sections around, or each make a copy under e.g. JonathanRoberts/DesktopUserGuide and give a vision of how things could be. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
