"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote: > I really like the current perldoc.com appearance. > Couldn't we just use that? (for now, at least)
Sure, but it's possible we want the data sliced several different ways... so we have to figure out what those ways might be. For example, if we want a treelike structure with a lot of crosslinking, we have to decide the best way to navigate that. > >TASK 1d: > I think exactly how /parrot/languages/perl6 has it now. Yep. Unless multiple people object, or someone thinks they have a better proposal.(?) Our major goal should be to have test cases closely associated with each sub-(sub-sub)-section, e.g. organized in the exact same manner, so that it's trivial to see what things do and don't have tests associated with them. > On another note, is there place (CVS) that can be set up > that this stuff can uploaded this stuff to? :) Not yet. We'll almost certainly just tack our stuff onto the current Parrot/Perl6 CVS tree, since that's the obvious place for it. But I note that CVS is pretty horrible at certain things -- it's a crappy way to coordinate on documents -- so I'm still thinking we want an online system of handling additions/comments/notations/edits, roughly similar to what I tested in the POOC with the bbs-thread-on-each-page. Again, see http://cog.cognitivity.com/perl6/ A system like that is better set up for instant-visibility _proposed_ edits, but the actual text is still committed by the moderator, so it's a well-proven way to coordinate efforts for large, granular projects like this one. If we used CVS directly to patch/commit actual sub*sections, we'd run into the whole "battling edits" and patch/commit blackhole imposed by CVS systems. It's bad enough with code, but for docs it can be infuriating. MikeL
