Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:38:06 +0000 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Udo Erdelhoff <ue@nathan.ruhr.de> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Translators: Need feedback on FAQ reorganization Message-ID: <20010315023806.B46684@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <20010314210730.J83336@nathan.ruhr.de>; from ue@nathan.ruhr.de on Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:07:30PM %2B0100 References: <20010311125040.E31751@holly.calldei.com> <20010312003518.A77178@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010312093709.B3114@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010312212209.G77178@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010312214725.B74204@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010313002953.I77178@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010313124524.B2130@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010313231654.G83336@nathan.ruhr.de> <20010314131233.C6138@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010314210730.J83336@nathan.ruhr.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:07:30PM +0100, Udo Erdelhoff wrote: > > The sequence of events was: >=20 > [long list snipped] >=20 > Hmm, seems you still don't get it. If somebody has an idea, you either te= ll > him "That idea is good because ..." or you tell him "That idea is trash > because ...". Just pouring out your own ideas without even acknowledging > other people's ideas is rude. Ignoring point blank questions asking for > feedback is a sure sign that you are not interested in other opinions. I still can't see anything in my archives, other than the biblio stuff, that comes close to this. If you've submitted stuff to the -doc list before and not had any feedback then I'm sorry, but sometimes that's how things work. We all have lives outside FreeBSD, and, ironically, it's the well crafted submissions that generate the most work for the committers,=20 because they require the most thought in crafting a response. I've got a bunch of e-mails pending in my -doc spool that I haven't replied to yet, simply because I don't have the cycles to do them the justice they deserve. Please note that this in no way is an impediment to *anyone* else on the -doc list taking an idea and running with it. If I feel strongly that a discussion is missing a point I'll do my damndest to make the time to contribute to the discussion, but otherwise, it takes its course. I don't think the -doc project has sufficient 'full time' committers yet that everything that comes in on the mailing list is handled as promptly as it should be. That's a shame, but it's getting slowly fixed as more committers come on board. Eventually we'll reach the necessary critical mass, and things will be much easier. If you want to help accelerate the process then the door is open. > And like I said at the time, I took the hint. And ever since this > not-discussion, I just don't care about differences in the markup. If I > think that it is broken in the international version, I'll fix it during > the translation. If somebody extracts the change from our repository and > integrates it into the international version, fine. That's a separate discussion, and one I'll follow up on with Alex. I think it's a very bad idea to have translations with different content in them. This isn't a "My documentation is better than yours" contest. =20 > > I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the quick fix of using a table > > for non-tabular data is better than trying to use the markup facilities > > that are provided by DocBook to markup bibliographic data. >=20 > Take a look at my old mails where I addressed this point. Short version: > The bibliography is a seperate chapter and users will be forced to jump > around to get the information. Additionally, the reference in the main > text is just $cryptic-mnemonic. That's fine for a scientific publication > but sucks for the FAQ, especially the static version (txt, pdf, ps, ...): >=20 > "Good books are Nem00, Kus90, Foo01, Bar02". Which is odd, because I've got stylesheet stuff here that gives you much more control over which information from the bibliographic data is included in the main body text -- full title, URL, ISBN, authors, and so on (basically, what you're asking for). Just because the stylesheet=20 *default* is to use the mnemonics doesn't mean that we have to go with the= =20 default. I appreciate your concerns, but I think we can solve them using the existing tools without needing to break with the philosophy behind the markup. But so far I've had no comments on the patches I've sent to the mailing list. N --=20 FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.freebsd.org/ FreeBSD Documentation Project http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/ --- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F 94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 --- --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjqwKw0ACgkQk6gHZCw343VMzgCfbAHEw6MhEltwrK235XKa3MSc V0AAn0WyjhDCa5RMdbXt1aQPyhoEYD/E =arws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010315023806.B46684>