Matthew East wrote:
Jonathan and Corey are 100% correct: we are nearing the end of a release cycle
and really do not need talk of drastic changes at this stage. We've got work to
do. I'd like to join the people who call for time being spent on making the
documentation great, rather than ideas. A time for ideas will come later.
The idea isn't to draw people away from the docs, don't get so worried
Matt! This is merely a discussion, nothing is even looking at going
ahead just yet, and even if it did I would wait until after the next
release.
Having said that, in my view there is no chance of moving away from docbook xml
as a documentation format, the main reason for this is that GNOME documentation
is in this format and I believe that in the long run Ubuntu desktop
documentation and GNOME documentation will get closer and closer together..
Whist it's nice that GNOME chose whatever, don't forget that Ubuntu !=
the GNOME project. The doc-team is free to use whatever tools it likes
to achieve its aim. I fully support the use of Docbook, however there is
no need to completely ignore everything else that exists. Lets not
forget that GuideXML can be converted up to Docbook also.
That's why we have, and will continue to have the wiki for unofficial
community guides/docs. There is no
reason why some of the more mature, useful ones couldn't be made "official"
and be given the docbook/guide
XML website treatment.
The distinction between official and unofficial is totally misleading both for
the user and for contributors. The use of these words also creates division. The
key word I'd like to see used is "reliability". The reality is that the wiki
contains a number of guides which are equally as reliable as the documents we
take care of, in some cases more reliable, and in some cases less. A website
where the user can find *all* documents is what we need, and good quality
control/reliability assessment to ensure that the user knows what he is getting.
I think your reading a little to much into what I said, none of my
suggestions will make anything more or less official then what they
already are. What my suggestions will do is open up the contents of the
doc-team subversion repository to a wider audience, meaning more eyes
and hands looking at/contributing to the core Ubuntu documentation. The
advantage over the wiki is that the system is still controlled by the
doc-team, which ensures a higher level of reliability over other sources.
Gentoo have a good system too, but Gentoo is a different world where technical
and high quality documentation abounds because of the nature of the user base.
We're in a different situation, in my opinion, and can develop a system that
best fits our user and contributor base.
I agree 100%, I think we could develop a system that best fits our needs
too. All of my observations were originally based on what I saw on the
Gentoo side of things, and put forward to entice discussion on the idea.
--
Robert Stoffers
rob1@xxxxxxxxxx
|
