discuss: Use for mini-HOWTOs (was: revival of the weekly news)
Subject:
Re: Use for mini-HOWTOs (was: revival of the weekly news)
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
7 May 2003 22:37:29 -0000
Message-Id: <3EAEE91A.6080500@mail.nyx.net>
Attribution getting weird here but I am sure you can figure it out...
David Lawyer wrote:
>>David Lawyer wrote:
[snip]
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 11:19:37PM +0200, Stein Gjoen wrote:
>
>>I agree a lot of (mini-)HOWTOs could be merged, the various Linux plus
>>foreign OS-HOWTOs seem numerous and like a good collection candidate.
I see my bad wording managed to confuse the issue. My point was
not about foreign languages (as in non-English) but rather
operating systems other than Linux. In fact most of the (mini)HOWTOs
I had in mind are written in English.
> Yes, but instead of merging some "foreign" ones could be just shortened
> by having some general information for internationalization in one
> overview howto. Then each language would have a mini-HOWTO mainly for
> things unique to that language. The overview howto would need to be
> translated to various languages. Even with this setup, it's nicer to
> have the entire topic covered in a language-specific howto which also
> contains the relevant overview stuff. But this makes writing it more
> difficult (it's longer). So I envision both types co-existing.
We don't disagree on what you write above; I am sure you all wondered
what I was on about. I guess I must have been too tired to think
clearly. So to rephrase: I propose the numerous Linux-plus-another-OS
mini-HOWTOs could be compiled into a single HOWTO.
>>In designing a system with supporting HOWTOs we should make
>>navigation simple, preferably not more than 2 levels deep.
>
> It's hard to know in advance how many levels deep it might get.
I know and that worries me. If it gets too complex we make it
unusable for our very target audience.
>>>It would be nice if the author of the overview howto could review the
>>>supporting child howtos. In some cases, "supporting" HOWTOs could be
>>>
>>This might be a good way of getting more reviewers but might
>>also be seen as a pressure. My Multi Disk HOWTO refers to a large
>>number of other HOWTOs but I do not have the capacity to review
>>updates of these regularly.
>
> What about asking for help via Lampadas (which we don't have yet)?
I am all for trying that.
>>>regular long HOWTOs. For example, a network HOWTO could have long
>>>"supporting" HOWTOs on various types of networks. Does anyone have a
>>>better name than "supporting"? It has sort of an inferior connotation
>>>to it, especially if the supporting HOWTO is longer and took more work
>>>to create than it's overview (parent) HOWTO. It's a tree structure
>>>where overview HOWTOs could be (at the same time) supporting HOWTOs for
>>>a still more general HOWTO>
>>>
>>Can you propose a way of letting our readers navigate these with
>>ease? Perhaps this is a hobby horse of mine but I feel this is
>>an important issue that is not entirely trivial.
>
> I can't. If one is off-line and doesn't have the other doc that is
> pointed to, it's impossible to "navigate". Different distributions may
> arrange the docs differently and name directories differently. Minis,
> regular howtos and/or guides may be in different directories. Also, the
> docs on ones computer disk may be stale.
I haven't forgotten my proposal of automatically packaging the LDP
documents but as usual I am a bit short on time.
> One thing we can do to improve things is to make it easier to find a doc
> when one goes to a LDP mirror site. If you have the name of a doc you
> want, it's not the easiest thing in the world to find it even after you
> get to a LDP mirror.
Anyone else on the list with ideas?
>>And will the idea of "Application Notes" be used/useful here
>>or entirely subsumed by the tree structure itself?
>
> I really shouldn't have said a tree structure. Two different parents may
> claim the same child, etc. It's a tree with some cross links so it's
> not really a tree.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
