[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: f.r.c organization



On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 08:41 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Karsten mentioned to me offhand last night, after the meeting, that we
> may need some standards in place for publication directories on
> fedora.redhat.com.  At least some of our publications will (hopefully)
> eventually be translated, and some may branch for different versions of
> Fedora Core.  The locations on the Web site should reflect this.  Here's
> some initial thoughts, any of which might be wrong:  :-)
> 
> 1. No directory should include the name "fedora," simply because it's
> redundant.

Agreed.  This stems from the parent XML filename, in our usage, where it
is also somewhat redundant.

> 2. I'm not an Apache expert, but I'm pretty sure there is functionality
> for redirecting client requests based on the browser's reported language
> settings.  In other words, if a client asks for "index.html," and it
> reports language "en," the server can deliver "index.en.html," or some
> such.  Same for "ru," "ko," etc.  We should try to take advantage of
> this with our current directory build names of "document-name-en,"
> "document-name-ru," etc., and not separate this off into a folder
> hierarchy of its own.
> 
> I could see this as a good way to organize:
> 
> docs/
>   selinux-faq/
>     fc2/
>       index.php ...
>     fc3/
>     fc4/
>   jargon-buster/
>   release-notes/
>     fc3/
>     fc4/
>   ...

You don't show the language extension here.

Currently we are all over the place.  Here are some variations:

docs/release-notes/fc4/ru/
docs/selinux-faq-fc3/
docs/fedora-install-guide-en/

I tend to like directories to sort things, but that could get crazy.
Does this have a natural stopping point (bottom level) that is sane
enough?  This is as deep as we need, I think:

  docs/fc4/selinux-faq/en/

What I see Paul is suggesting:

  docs/fc4/selinux-faq-en/

Timothy Murphy said:

> I would have put the OS split (fc2, fc3, etc) before the subject
> split, since most people will only be interested in documentation
> for a given distribution. 

That's a good point worth considering.

Are people looking for documents:

a) First by version, then by subject?
b) First by subject, then by version?

I'm not sure what I _think_ is true.  Personally, I tend to look by
subject, then by version.  There is often not what I need in my
particular version, so I am looking for 'close enough.'

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
                       Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]