Re: [Usability] The future of gup in developer and bugzilla
- From: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>
- To: Calum Benson <Calum Benson Sun COM>
- Cc: usability gnome org, Quim Gil <qgil desdeamericaconamor org>
- Subject: Re: [Usability] The future of gup in developer and bugzilla
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:43:45 -0600
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 18:31 +0000, Calum Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 18:44 +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> > En/na Calum Benson ha escrit:
> > > Can you summarise the discussion again? :/
> > The part that affects GUP starts more or less here:
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-web-list/2005-December/msg00092.html
> > The debate moves around the platform to be used to manage wgo: to CVS
> > like until now or to CMS with Drupal (as default candidate). See
> > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb_2fPlatform
> > By default developer.g.o would move to live.g.o as agreed, but
> > apparently this is not enough for GUP's requirements. In the meantime
> > Shaun said that perhaps we need something more "strcutured" than a wiki
> > to organise and create stable documentation. Drupal has this capacity
> > and even some functionality to export Docbook, but of course it can't
> > generate tarballs etc.
For the record, I'm pretty much completely opposed to relying on
live.gnome.org for any real public-facing stuff. For internal
planning and sketching, fine. But it's a wasteland of broken
navigation. Why should half our site look and feel different
than the rest?
Get a single CMS in place and put everything you can under it,
including all the current developer.gnome.org content. With a
good CMS, we have all the advantages of a wiki anyway, and the
site will feel unified.
> Hmm yes, true enough. Have to admit I'd personally be quite happy to
> move away from DocBook (perhaps just to plain old HTML) for the HIG
> anyway, as it's kind of hard to take stylistic advice very seriously
> from a document that looks a bit crap :) But of course, we lose the
> ability to easily generate PDFs from plain HTML. (I have similar
> reservations about using anything vaguely wiki based for such large
> documents-- I've yet to see any done well.)
It's only crap output because the XSLT you're using produces
crap output. There's nothing inherent about DocBook that makes
the output crap.
> > So we should decide what to do with GUP, considering that developer.g.o
> > will be closed at some point.
> Whatever happened to the whole library.gnome.org concept, btw? That's
> conceivably the sort of place where stable versions of the HIG et al.
> should live, with (perhaps) development versions taking shape on
> live.gnome.org (ideally with some sort of magic wiki->DocBook
> translation happening at the appropriate time...)
library.gnome.org really needs to happen. We need a strapping
young lad (or lass) to come and take charge, like Quim has done
so well with the rest of the web space.
] [Thread Prev