Il giorno mer, 17/06/2009 alle 09.24 -0500, Shaun McCance ha scritto: > > We also need to decide how we want to record the status of the > document as a whole. We would record this in index.page. Maybe > something like this: > > <info> > <!-- Status for index.page --> > <revision version="..." docversion="2.28" status="..."/> > <!-- Status for the document has no @version --> > <revision docversion="2.28" status="..."/> > </info> > > Or maybe we don't need separate revision elements. Maybe we can > just consider the status of index.page to be the status of the > document. Since index.page is a guide, it will have little real > content to review. Will we need to track its status separately? > I don't know. I think, to easy a little bit things, that we can use one revision line for the index.page and probably no "version" for the index.page. How often do we think it will change once is done? > In any case, I expect that as we start to use status tracking > more, we'll find room for improvement. We can always change, > so let's not worry too much about getting it perfect on the > first iteration. I second that. Better start using it, but in a guided way. What do I mean: we need to write somewhere how to do it. Personally, as I said, I'm fine with the one-revision line for the index.page to be intended as the status of the whole document. topics.page pages will have their own revision history. Ciao. -- Milo Casagrande <milo casagrande name>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente