Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Xavier Neys <neysx@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:52:21
In Reply to: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents by "Jan Kundrát"
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 d) Outdated translation
Outdated translations are something different, but more about that later.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 Another way would have been to list the outdated/unmaintained docs in an external file, or add attributes to metadoc.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 complexity. 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. I have implemented a proposal with the following disclaimers: "articles" for republished articles "oldbook" self-explanatory "obsolete" idem Disclaimers can also auto-redirect users, very useful for obsolete docs. Samples: Now about outdated translations: It's possible to use metadoc to check the corresponding original and display a note about a more recent original.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 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. Notes: 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) We need to use the dates and not the versions because using the versions would force us to compare handbooks file by file. 3) Reminder: the date of a handbook is the max_date(master, all parts) 4) Some of you need to stop bumping dates needlessly 5) 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). Samples: FYI, an inserts would like like Please comment. Cheers, -- / Xavier Neys \_ Gentoo Documentation Project / French & Internationalisation Lead \ /\ -- gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list