Re: summarizing docs-on-the-web discussion

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="John Fleck"/>

> > It would also be good to have a fairly strong plan for the docs
> > information architecture to come from you guys. I think that only a few
> > special docs will sit outside each major documentation section...
> > 
> > Can't even think of any off the top of my head - Oh! Yes I can, the
> > release notes would not be there, they'd be in the release area, under
> > start/.
> > 
> > So, other than examples like these, you can pretty much rely on having
> > your own playpen within each big area ("Users", "Developers", etc.)
>         
> Jargon alert! Jargon alert! When you say "information architecture", what
> that means is that we need to come up with a plan for the directory
> structure and how the navigation would work within that directory
> structure - what sort of index page there would be for each of the main
> branches of the tree, etc., right?

:-) Yes.

> And we probably also need to settle out what stylesheet(s) we want to use
> for the generated html, too, eh?

I'm actually working on custom stylesheets (additions to the official Walsh
Docbook XML ones) that make the docs integrate into the website seamlessly.
The content area will look like yelp for the most part. There'll be lots of
room for tweaking these once the framework beta goes up. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
      "Then it hit me: What I really want is for all edit panes in all      
    applications to be gnuclient processes hooked to a centralized emacs    
                     gnuserver process!" - Gary Murphy