As for the maintenance of this reference material: it is my opinion that mozilla hackers should be *required* to update this material as they make changes to the underlying APIs. Superreview should not be granted without corresponding API updates. The lead editor should have the power to "crack the whip" for non-compliant developers.
Wasn't there a blip of a thought on using the javadoc comments, which the developers _should_ be updating or writing as needed, for this? I would much prefer that, personally, since it keeps the comments with the code and prevents documentation skew (the website saying one thing while the IDL says another).
If the javadoc comments are not detailed enough (as they usually are not), we need to decide whether to make them more detailed or whether to require documenting on the website additional to the creation of javadoc comments (eg usage examples, etc).
-Boris _______________________________________________ mozilla-documentation mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
