Howard Page-Clark schrieb:
I also can assign doc files to those people, which are willing to
proofread the documentation, so that we can avoid duplicate work.
I'm a native English speaker, and I'm willing to proofread
documentation, and make suggestions for improvements. However, I suspect
it is almost an endless task, and probably too much for one person to
undertake (although the ideal would be for one English-speaker to
undertake this, to get a consistent 'house style' and consistent
spelling [UK > US English?]).
It's a big task, but not endless. The documentation must be provided by
the developers, or by other experienced coders. Stylistic differences
between multiple editors should be acceptable, unless paid for ;-)
No idea about the UK/US differences. Except for Color instead of Colour ;-)
Several questions arise immediately. Where precisely are the original
documents? How can I (or anyone else) be trusted to edit them correctly?
A proofreader should only make the provided text better readable, if
required. Currently only few elements are described in a way, that
justifies an final touch.
What about formatting style, indenting etc. for code examples?
You can try to work out an style guide for the documentation, so that
others can help to establish the suggested arrangement and formatting of
the full descriptions. Good examples are a source of inspiration :-)
It would
be good to have consistency here too. I notice quite a lot of
fpc/Lazarus source is quite terse:
[ result:=i*trunc(x/y); rather than result := i * Trunc( x/y ); ]
I see no need for quoting code in a description. Examples instead should
follow the formatting guidelines, more or less closely.
DoDi
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
