The site 
http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/edge/cordova_plugins_pluginapis.md.html#Plugin%20APIs
 says
<quote>
Non-English translations of these plugin docs can be found by looking at older 
versions of the Cordova documentation. Use the drop-down menu at the very 
top-right of this site to switch versions.
</quote>

I assume the English version of the docs for the plugin is correct for the 
latest version of that plugin.

But IIUC doesn't that quote above mean (depending on plugin version changes) 
that the non-English docs can't really be trusted anymore because they are 
potentially incompatible with the actual latest plugin? It seems like the site 
is basically saying "go to XXX where you will be able to see some outdated 
non-English documentation". Is that helpful?

-----Original Message-----
From: agri...@google.com [mailto:agri...@google.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Grieve
Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014 2:35 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Plugins Release!

Feedback definitely welcome in this department.
For the 3.4.0 release, the main docs for plugins will look like:
http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/edge/cordova_plugins_pluginapis.md.html#Plugin%20APIs


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Ray Camden <rayca...@adobe.com> wrote:

> Is that the plan for 'core' plugins too? Won't that make it difficult 
> for someone to see PG features as a whole? Will there be an index of 
> some sort to make it easier to browse perhaps?
>
> Sorry for all the questions - just thinking about this from the 
> perspective of folks *not* on this list.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:28 PM
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Plugins Release!
>
> The docs should be in the repo for the plugin itself, under the docs
> folder:
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-camera/blob/master/doc/index.
> md
>
> We're moving the docs to the plugin repo itself I believe, to 
> de-duplicate things.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Ray Camden <rayca...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
>

Reply via email to