DUG: Connecting to the Internet page skipped...
kwade at redhat.com
Thu Apr 12 00:26:43 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 21:02 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> On 11/04/07, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 12:07 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > > ...in navigation structure but is present in contents. Is there a
> > > reason for this or is it a mistake?!
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you point out where this
> > is happening?
> I went ahead and fixed it. The problem was that the links at the
> bottom of each page, to go forward and back, skipped connecting to the
> internet - but it was present in the contents...does that make any
> more sense than what I said before!?
Ah, I see. I think those links can be an exception to the rule of "make
all links full URLs". The reasons are:
* The navigation construct is Wiki-only; it doesn't get translated into
anything meaningful in the XML-side. That is, you can see a table like
the table we made, but in DocBook, the navigation is built
* The links in DocBook need to be <xref>, that is, an internal
cross-reference link. Full URLs are translated to <ulink> tags, which
are external URI-based and not built automagically.
> > > Screenshots for that page are
> > > currently in spanish as well.
> > screenshots-- are evil :)
> > I think those were placeholders, but the situation speaks to the
> > problems of screenshots.
> So is the policy to avoid screenshots?!
We do have some directions about them:
I threw this out recently:
I think they are much more trouble than the are worth. In fact, they
are a bit of a PITA. IMO, it's a self-perpetuating problem that people
expect screenshots, so we provide them. I also think good writing
stands fine without screenshots. And diagrams are definitely different,
which any good screenshot can become; they are a PITA, too, but can be
But this is really just my opinion. I'm not here to say, "Me
professional, me say, this best way!" In fact, the best way is what the
community of readers wants *and* needs. It is our job to give them what
they need, even if they don't know they need it; and to address their
wants. I think we must tune our decisions to our Fedora audience, even
if I personally don't like it. There is a (constantly shifting) balance
This is why I've been trying to spark discussion ... and consensus ...
on these style decisions. There are standards, there are opinions, and
there is the Fedora Content Way. It is the latter that we need to
define and stick with. And it shouldn't be just Paul, Patrick, and me
making all these decisions -- unless you all want it that way. ;-D
> One thing I thought about the
> DUG, which maybe is better in a different thread, was that the
> description talks about it being "task orientated" but some of the
> sections felt a bit thin on the ground in that respect - is this the
> kind of concept material to be pushed to other docs?!
Yes, this was discussed a bit in some other threads, and is in fact an
external complaint we have received. It's all right, that's the way
open content goes - you push it out the door, fix bugs, and push it out
Mr. Babich -- Maybe we should open the DesktopReferenceGuide? Or a
better name? You all can start moving sections around, or each make a
copy under e.g. JonathanRoberts/DesktopUserGuide and give a vision of
how things could be.
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the fedora-docs-list