1 |
Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
2 |
>>a) Third party article |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> We "can" fix those, but you don't see any news site "fix" their news items |
6 |
> after a year... they are kept online as a reference. You might want to write |
7 |
> a new article about the same subject but more accurate - having the old |
8 |
> article at your disposal can be very interesting. |
9 |
|
10 |
Well, I'm not talking about fixing, but marking *third-party* articles |
11 |
as such. |
12 |
|
13 |
> Although I can see why you want the chapters of the older handbooks "marked" |
14 |
> as out-dated, some people still use the older handbooks, especially if they |
15 |
> have older release media and want a networkless installation. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> But then again, that's not the point :) Personally, I don't think we need |
18 |
> anything red on those handbooks - I would refer to the people's common sense |
19 |
> when they are reading the 2004.3 handbook :) |
20 |
|
21 |
Okay, you've persuaded me :-). |
22 |
|
23 |
>>c) Translation in language which is not officially supported |
24 |
> |
25 |
> |
26 |
> We don't link that language; the documents are made available if you know |
27 |
> the URI (which is of course not difficult to grasp). Perhaps we can disable |
28 |
> viewing it entirely unless some variable is set (?override=1) but I don't |
29 |
> think we should. |
30 |
|
31 |
Neither do I. And yes, you (well, actually someone else, probably rane |
32 |
or flammie) are right, additional warning might scare users so they |
33 |
won't trust the translation which is very bad for the first stage of the |
34 |
process. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Yes, I know you want something to tell the users "Beware, this document |
37 |
> might contain wrong information" but then again, how would you know the |
38 |
> document gives wrong directives to the user? An old hardware-related guide |
39 |
> might still be perfectly valid - just not updated. Or a very recent guide |
40 |
> can contain erroneous commands while it is still actively maintained. |
41 |
|
42 |
I haven't said old document is wrong document, of course not. I was |
43 |
inspired by some bugreports touching articles. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Imo, as long as there is no AI that can inform us about the malicious |
46 |
> content of a document, we can't easily mark such documents as "outdated" or |
47 |
> "erroneous". I have made a small attempt by allowing us to mark a specific |
48 |
> bug as a showstopper in metadoc - as a result, the document will be unlinked |
49 |
> from the index page. This can be extended by adding-in a <warn> on top of |
50 |
> the document, but you'll have to fight Xavier with this as this results in |
51 |
> another few queries of metadoc and such and makes the XSL again more |
52 |
> obscure. |
53 |
|
54 |
Yep, the question is if it is worth the effort. I'm inclining to say |
55 |
"no", based on the arguments I've received (except for third-party |
56 |
articles :-) ). |
57 |
|
58 |
Cheers, |
59 |
-jkt |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |