discuss: intro
Subject:
Re: [discuss] intro
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
9 Jan 2009 07:15:01 +0000
Message-Id: <20090109070519.GA16300@davespc>
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:06:07AM +0100, jdd for http://tldp.org wrote:
> David Lawyer a ?crit :
>
> > One thing that needs to be put back in the manifesto is that LDP
> > doesn't normally support documentation for one particular application.
> > Such documentation is supposed to come with the application. But if
> > it doesn't or if it needs improvement and the maintainer(s) of the
> > application software can't provide this, then someone can write an LDP
> > doc for it. And I suppose this is the case for the joe text editor.
>
> The Joe text editor doc on subject *is* on the LDP for years now, I
> don't know how it come, but then we can keep it...
It wasn't in our mainstream of docs since it was HTML.
>
> We can IMHO also have doc on single application if the doc have a
> different point of view than the standard doc (we must have some added
> value) - many official docs lack the "HOWTO" kind of doc.
I agree, but someone who knows nothing about LDP (and perhaps little
about Linux) might think that we are supposed to document everything
and then wonder why we don't even try to do so. Our highest priority
for supplying documentation should be where it involves the
coordinated use of more than one application to accomplish a task(s),
or explains the interactions of hardware with software, etc.
David Lawyer
