Thank you for your votes guys: There are 5 +1 votes. I'll remove it as soon as I have CVS access (probably at the beginning of the next week --> this unfortunatly also means that I can't take part at the Virtual Hackaton in a way which requires CVS commits. ... but I'll join discussions.).
-- Reinhard > -----Original Message----- > From: Reinhard Poetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [VOTE] Remove IDL-Docs (was: Documenting the FOM) > > > > I propose to remove the IDL-docs because they are far from > being up-to-date and the Flow-API is well-described in our usual docs. > > Here my +1. > > -- > Reinhard > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Reinhard Poetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Documenting the FOM > > > > > > > > From: Geoff Howard > > > > > Reinhard Poetz wrote: > > > > From: Giacomo Pati > > > > > > > > > > > >>Is the idl syntax still the way to describe the FOM > documentation? > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK it is far from being up-to-date. Chris added the FOM > > > description > > > > to the Control Flow documentation. I think we can remove > > > the IDL docs. > > > > > > > > WDOT? > > > > > > I wouldn't object. At the very least the link off the > main welcome > > > page should not describe them as the "flow docs". They don't > > quite cut it > > > for the new user. > > > > Before deleting it we should disable them by default because > > their content is wrong. I'm not sure if I have time to do it > > today - if somebody else has time don't wait for me. > > > > Do we need a vote for deleting the IDL docs at all? > > > > Reinhard > > >
