Re: library.gnome.org organization

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 11:28 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Shaun McCance wrote:
> > * We only have three documents for bindings: one
> > for C++ and two for Python.  Surely there are more
> > documents.  Additionally, these are buried deep in
> > References.  Imagine you're a Python programmer.
> > This is not an optimal way to find out how to use
> > the Gnome platform.
> 
> The other really useful document about Python is the
> PyGTK FAQ, it should really be included there.
> 
> And there is more to bindings than just C++ and
> Python, including those other languages would be
> useful too.

Oh, totally.  The Java, .Net, and Perl bindings are
official, so should absolutely be on library.  And
we could include other bindings as well, if they're
useful.  But we should probably figure out a way of
marking them as unofficial.  And, similar to what
I said about peripheral libraries, they shouldn't
get in the way of everything else.

> > * And on that note, References is way too long,
> > and contains a lot of potential noise.  We have
> > references there for stuff that isn't even in our
> > release set.  I think it's great if we can provide
> > this service to peripheral projects, but we don't
> > want it to get in the way of our docs.
> 
> That would be my fault as I received requests against
> library.gnome.org to include some documents (gnome-scan
> being the latest one, added yesterday) about things
> that are not approved yet.
> 
> Moving all of those to a "peripheral projects" page, 
> or down the references page ?

Well, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to
have these documents on library.  They just need to
be well-organized.

> > Here's a possible organization:
> > 
> > * Overviews, Guides, and Tutorials
> > * Reference Manuals
> >   - Platform
> >   - C++ Bindings
> >   - Python Bindings
> >   - Desktop
> >   - Other
> >   - Specifications
> > * Development Tools
> > * Application Plugins and Internals
> > 
> > This isn't fully fleshed out.  Basically, I just
> > want to ensure people can not only find what they
> > want, but can also explore.  Thoughts?
> 
> >From home page to development to references to Python
> docs may be a long way, perhaps the development page
> could be modified to have direct links to subsections,

Totally.  That's actually what I was thinking, though
my email was vague on that.

--
Shaun