Making mental note to self to bring this up when the newly appointed docs
editors get together. We're trying to establish conventions, and this would
be a helpful one. Making this part of the "overview" section for each main
topic area (where appropriate) would be ideal. 

Along the same lines, I don't want to simply mark documentation as
"obsolete" unless it really is -- it would be more helpful to preserve the
pieces and parts in this manner via inline comments  / related links than to
do a complete rewrite. 

- Veda



jbaldivieso wrote:
> 
> 
> Perhaps a useful piece of documentation would be a single page  
> (forgive me if this already exists -- I couldn't find it) that, by  
> Plone version, lists the areas of technologies that have shifted,  
> linking to the relevant documentation for them.  For instance (pardon  
> the formatting and arbitrary examples):
> 
> Plone Version |       Before we used  |       Now we use
> Plone 2.5             |       Portlet logic within skinned portlet templates  
> |       Portlet  
> logic delegated to views
> Plone 3.0             |       Reusable chunks of HTML contained in macros in 
> skinned  
> template      |       Now in viewlets
> Plone 3.0             |       Portal status messages passed through in query 
> string   |  
> Status messages registered through utility
> 
> 
> Jon
> ___________________________
> Jon Baldivieso
> 503.222.5064
> ONE/Northwest Portland Office
> 
> New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the  
> environment
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Product-Developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/-Product-Developers--Where-does-it-hurt--tp17301616s20094p17347618.html
Sent from the Product Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


_______________________________________________
Product-Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers

Reply via email to