discuss: Formats
Subject:
Re: Formats
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
24 Feb 2016 07:20:02 +0000
Message-Id: <20160224072105.GD24965@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> Should LDP accept all formats? No.
Hold that thought for a moment.
> First of all, a doc needs to contain the authors name, email (perhaps
> scrambled), and date of revision and a perhaps a note as to whether or
> not the revision is minor.
So, if a good submission arrived in, say, plaintext or HTML that lacked
those elements, we volunteers would say something like 'Terrific
contribution, and thank you! By the way, what's the author's name, date
of revision, and by the way is the revision minor?' Right? I think the
answer to that question is 'yes'. So, in effect, that submision would
be gratefully resceived and we-all would add the missing elements as
prompted from the submitter.
(My recollection is that LDP also learned from past neglect about
explicit licensing terms, and would politely pursue the submitter to
secure a grant of some forkable-permissions licensing terms from the
copyright holder before merging the doc into LDP's collection. Correct
me if I'm wrong, please.)
BTW, I will conditionally volunteer to help convert into reasonable
formats promising submissions arriving in strange format.
('Conditionally' means I reserve the right to say I'm busy or otherwise
unavailable at particular times, and of course there are many strange
formats I cannot parse, and possibly some for which I'd turn out to lack
time and patience.)
So, functionlly speaking, I'd suggest that no format is an automatic
deal-breaker, and it's not in LDP's interest to so suggest.
