Hi all,
I'm working through the logistics of consuming arbitrary markup
formats. It would be helpful to have a standardized way to describe a
document. The example below is YAML, because it is easy to digest,
write, and read, and I think the structure covers the important
attributes without being cumbersome.
---
title: Example Document
stub: A representation of a document description standard.
abstract: >
This could be an example document.
It could explain example documents.
It could use examples to explain what a document is.
It is none of these.
author:
- Carlton Bentleby
- Vizek Glibensky
- Obvious Pseudonym
taxonomy:
theme: Contributions
scope: Documentation
track: Metadata
project: anerist
tags:
- yaml
- metadata
- proposal
- standard
---
title, stub, and abstract are self-apparent.
Author seems like a MAY item; for a standard to go further than our
group, it'll need that, but staking a line around a collaborative work
MAY discourage collaboration.
The taxonomy can be in any order, but in function it's hierarchical;
theme at a very abstract level, scope being more refined, track gets
down to a specific topic. The project differentiates between different
approaches to addressing a given topic (and hey, people _will_ look for
answers on a specific solution).
Tags give some SEO value, could help crossreferences, site search
features... all that stuff that tags do.
What do you think? How can it be better?
--
-- Pete Travis
- Fedora Docs Project Leader
- 'randomuser' on freenode
- immanetize@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
docs mailing list
docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
