*This is not a double post even though it might look like one, please read on*
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Hi GDP-related entities,
> as promised on IRC, here are my ideas about $SUBJECT.
> Currently we have quite a lot of "unsupported"/"invalid"/"unmaintained"
> documents for one of these reasons:
> a) Third party article
> b) Older Handbook
> c) Translation in language which is not officially supported
> d) Outdated translation
Outdated translations are something different, but more about that later.
Adding a disclaimer at the beginning of a doc is a good idea IMO.
To clear a few points:
Adding a disclaimer is not about about making a doc unofficial.
Everything that we publish is official, or has been so at least.
If we want to make a doc officially unofficial, we remove it.
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.
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Another way would have been to list the outdated/unmaintained docs in an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
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.
It does not need to be red. Text surrounded by a simple dark blue border might
I have implemented a proposal with the following disclaimers:
"articles" for republished articles
Disclaimers can also auto-redirect users, very useful for obsolete docs.
Now about outdated translations:
It's possible to use metadoc to check the corresponding original and display a
note about a more recent original.
I've implemented the following:
If a translation is not listed in its local metadoc, warn users translation is
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 versions and
warn users that a more recent original exists with a link to it.
Some doc dev complained that comparing the dates would not work if two updates
occurred in the same day. True. Comparing the versions is a bit more complex
and involves two extra scans of the handbooks (the original and the translated
one). It's fast enough IMO. My <300Mhz test box still delivers handbook
chapters under the second. Note that it is still not 100% fool-proof. If a
chapter disappears from the original, the mention of a more recent original
would not appear on the translations because the xsl scans the original and
compares the version with the version of the file that is included at the same
position (part/chapter-wise) in the translation. That has not happened yet.
I'm not going to parse the version strings to try to quantify the amount of
changes that occurred because 1) versions are not structured 2) a single bump
could mean a small or a big change, and vice-versa for more bumps. Displaying
the date of the original should be a good indication.
0) All languages must have a metadoc.xml. Not a problem IMO. <metadoc/> will
do for currently unsupported languages.
1) We have to use metadoc and *may not* test the corresponding file (ie.
s:/pl/:/en/:) as that would force us to keep files we want to remove in
/doc/en/ until all translated versions have disappeared.
2) Reminder: the date of a handbook is the max_date(master, all parts)
3) Some of you need to stop bumping dates needlessly because it would make
translations look older then they actually are.
4) link attributes must contain the full path, no more <book
link="handbook-x86.xml"> (not required on my test site, but would be on www.g.o)
At the moment, it is limited to /doc as dates are not reliable outside of /doc
anyway (not yyyy-mm-dd formatted or not bumped properly).
FYI, an inserts would like like
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/ French & Internationalisation Lead
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list