Re: updating templates

[Dan Mueth <d-mueth uchicago edu>]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Pat Costello wrote:

> Thanks for your mail about the license. The Sun legal team say that at a minium
> clauses covering liability and warranty >>must<< ship with the documentation,
> ideally in the actual license. Richard Stallman was amenable to updating the
> license, but when the Free Software Foundation reviewed the situation, they were
> not keen on including new clauses into the GFDL, probably because they could
> envision different situations where the warranty or liability clauses need to be
> fitted to local conditions. The FSF suggested amending the existing license to
> allow for the concurrent shipping of liability and warranty disclaimers. The Sun
> legal team have accepted this suggestion. The Sun documentation team is happy
> with this strategy as well - providing we can use the separate title page
> approach. So, as it stands right now, the Sun legal team is doing a last polish
> of the  L 'n' D clauses, Richard Stallman is revising the GFDL, and I am trying
> to create a suitable title page that is acceptable to the community as well as
> Sun. All in all, I'd say we are making some progress with this issue.

Sounds great.  Thanks for all the hard work you and others at Sun are
doing on this front (not to mention the style guide, writing
documentation, translating, hacking, usability, accessability, ... :)

> > * I think we should strike "Title Page" from the string at the top of the
> > page, which I believe should just be the document title.
>
>
> If we strike the words Title Page from the top of the document, then the
> document will have the same title as the actual online Help manual. This could
> be confusing. I know that the title becomes long and clumsy with the words Title
> Page, nevertheless these words identify the nature of this particular document.
> Also, the GFDL defines and uses the term Title Page, see section 4
> Modifications, of the GFDL. If we strike the words Title Page from the actual
> title, then I would at least recommend puttin the words Title Page in a
> paragraph tag immediately under the title.
>
> >
> > * I'm assuming there isn't actually a "Previous" link at the bottom of the
> > title page, and that we may want to replace "Home" with "Contents".
> > Right?
> >
>
> I don't really have an opinion about this question. I'd be happy with any of the
> above links at the bottom of the Title Page. Previous would be acceptable,
> because the only place that people should be able to open the Title Page would
> be from the TOC, therefore the Previous link would take people back to the TOC,
> which is the right thing.

In the comments I made above, I was assuming the title page was the first
page of the document, with the TOC following it. (Here applications would
link to the TOC page, bypassing the title page.)  It appears that you were
planning to have the TOC as the first section, followed by the title page.
It looks like either way would satisfy the GFDL.

Dan