Xavier Neys wrote:
> Of course, users reading a 2004.3 handbook should realise it's old, but they
> could at least be told it's not maintained anymore so that 1) they can read it
> with a grain of salt 2) they should not bother submitting bugs.
IMHO that's against what SwifT said about fixing?
> Dumping the text in the doc itself is not a great idea as it will lead to
> cut'n'paste errors and lose consistency. Besides, scripts could not distinguish
> normal content from such disclaimers.
> Another way would have been to list the outdated/unmaintained docs in an
> external file, or add attributes to metadoc. IMO, this adds some unnecessary
External file would look mroe elegant to me, but that's just me.
> I much prefer something along Flammie's idea, a new tag. This way, we just need
> to add the tag to the relevant doc and forget about it.
> As we already see the need for different disclaimers, I suggest using a
> <disclaimer> tag with a type attribute. The relevant text is fished from our
> inserts.xml files and I suggest displaying it right at the top of the content
> area. It needs to be either before, after or on the side, but I'd rather not
> insert it randomly in the text.
> Now about outdated translations:
> It's possible to use metadoc to check the corresponding original and display a
> note about a more recent original.
That would be great.
> I've implemented the following:
> If a translation is not listed in its local metadoc, warn users translation is
> not maintained.
> If a translation is listed in its local metadoc, but not in the parent one (ie.
> the English one), warn users original doc is not maintained anymore.
> If file appears both in local and English metadocs, compare their dates and warn
> users that a more recent original exists with a link to it.
Well, as I said on IRC, I'd prefer checking <version>, but <date> is
also better than nothing, yep (code which would check <version>s of HB
files is not available).
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth