Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Xavier Neys wrote:
>>>a) "This article is not part of the official Gentoo documentation, it
>>>has been republished on our site only for your convenience and with
>>>permisson of the respective copyright owner. It may not reflect current
>>>state of things and could be outdated."
>>No need to hack the xsl for that, just add it at the beginning of each
>>article like we already have the note about owners.
> This implies manual changing of several files which is not good, IMHO.
Why? We change a small number of docs once, then forget about them.
Do you think it is better to introduce more code, more complexity to be
maintained, more stuff to be executed on each and every doc request?
Is that your definition of better?
>>Can only be done with a reliable document location made available to the
>>xsl which we lack at the moment.
>>I wish we could but at the moment, we can't really
> Well, I think that fixing <guide path="..."> that does'nt contain
> directory name is easier than adding some disclaimer to every file and
> could be done by a script (haven't tried, though). And it wouldn't
> matter if we didn't catch every outdated/unmaintained/... document, but
> at least some of them will be marked.
If we mark some files as unmaintained, we're also telling our users that
non-marked files *are* maintained.
> So, is there any problem to check the value of the path attribute
> (provided it includes the directory name) against some regexp and if it
> matches, add some warning to the generated page?
> Maybe also introduce another parameter to metadoc saying "this
> translation is outdated", but I'm not sure if this is worth the effort.
You should try to think about feasibility, implementation & consequences first.
/me comes back on Monday.
Have a nice weekend,
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/ French & Internationalisation Lead
email@example.com mailing list