On Monday, May 6, 2002, at 03:59 am, David Crossley wrote:
> Another issue to add to the list is standard spelling.
> Considering that we are talking English, i would prefer
> to see British English spelling rather than a dialect,
> such as Americanization. For example:
> howto-visualise-sitema
Robert Koberg wrote:
>
> >
> h... maybe this discussion should be on a docs list.
>
+10 ;)
Carsten
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>
>>Oh man... This is very pedantic. I prefer to see ACTUAL REAL
>>documentation rather than rejected documentation based on some minor
>>colloquiallism that irritated someone. I'm an American, I work with
>>someone from Austrailia, severa
While I agree that it is not that important (currently), but if it is so
pedantic why did you respond (with examples)?
You say docs should be written for an international audience... English
is not the only language in the world. Creating localization
sub-projects would only be translations of
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> Oh man... This is very pedantic. I prefer to see ACTUAL REAL
> documentation rather than rejected documentation based on some minor
> colloquiallism that irritated someone. I'm an American, I work with
> someone from Austrailia, several folks from GB have contribute
Oh man... This is very pedantic. I prefer to see ACTUAL REAL
documentation rather than rejected documentation based on some minor
colloquiallism that irritated someone. I'm an American, I work with
someone from Austrailia, several folks from GB have contributed, Indian
folks, etc. And in t
What about standardizing on a lang and creating localization
sub-projects? I worked for a large British company and they did not have
a problem with us writing everything in American English. We then set it
up for their authors to localize to British (basically to not offend
(uggg...) the
Conal Tuohy wrote:
>>From: Diana Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>On May 5, 2002, David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Another issue to add to the list is standard spelling.
>>>Considering that we are talking English, i would prefer
>>>to see British English spelling rather than a dialect,
> From: Diana Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On May 5, 2002, David Crossley wrote:
>
> > Another issue to add to the list is standard spelling.
> > Considering that we are talking English, i would prefer
> > to see British English spelling rather than a dialect,
> > such as Americanization.
On May 5, 2002, David Crossley wrote:
> Another issue to add to the list is standard spelling.
> Considering that we are talking English, i would prefer
> to see British English spelling rather than a dialect,
> such as Americanization. For example:
> howto-visualise-sitemap.html rather than
> h
Another issue to add to the list is standard spelling.
Considering that we are talking English, i would prefer
to see British English spelling rather than a dialect,
such as Americanization. For example:
howto-visualise-sitemap.html rather than
howto-visualize-sitemap.html
I suppose that consiste
I am fully with Bertand's naming convention ideas (below).
URLs that have some logic and so are memorable or guessable.
For FAQs the section-identifier structured number is good.
For other document types, i go with well-chosen topic names.
I also prefer the dash - to underscore _ because it has
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Morrison, John wrote:
>
> >Just a few pence worth:
> >
> >1) *please* use . Developers had real heart ache with Y2K ;)
> we don't have to worry about it for oh about 93 years or so... You
> think you'll still be around then? ;-) (i
Morrison, John wrote:
>Just a few pence worth:
>
>1) *please* use . Developers had real heart ache with Y2K ;)
>
we don't have to worry about it for oh about 93 years or so... You
think you'll still be around then? ;-) (irony alert)
>
>2) Cocoon can dynamically map abstract URI to intern
On Friday 03 May 2002 12:44, Diana Shannon wrote:
>. . .
>www.apache.org/cocoon/faqs/02050308
>. . .
I like numbers for FAQ items, or maybe structured numbers like
"faqs/03.0200/faq-03.200.html" meaning section 3 FAQ 200 (see below about the
redundancy in the filename).
But for larger docu
On May 3, 2002, John Morrison wrote:
> 2) Cocoon can dynamically map abstract URI to internal document
> locations
> (ie there doesn't have to be a one-2-one relationship)
I realize this. I'm just extending what I thought were existing patterns
of file organization within the cvs. I tho
On May 3, 2002, Robert Koberg wrote:
> If content needs to be edited after a release and then re-released,
> what date do you use?
Tim BL argues for use of "initial" date, period. This doesn't change.
> The latest date? This screws up search engines and peoples bookmarks.
The goal is to use
Just a few pence worth:
1) *please* use . Developers had real heart ache with Y2K ;)
2) Cocoon can dynamically map abstract URI to internal document locations
(ie there doesn't have to be a one-2-one relationship)
J.
One other thing... it is interesting to note the URL for TBLs article:
I started investigating this issue by reading Tim Berner-Lee's article
on the subject (See http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html). Tim
makes some interesting recommendations
best,
-Rob
Robert Koberg wrote:
> Hi Diana
Hi Diana,
I am for subject/topics rather than dates. Dates are good for something
that will produced once and never edited again (like news articles). I
think the nature of cocoon-docs would require a good percentage of the
documents to be edited and released several times in their life. If
c
> GOOD: dates (e.g. 020430)
> REASON: The date when the URI is issued will not change. Helps to separate
> requests which use a new system from those which use an old system.
>
> Following these guidelines, we might use some variant of:
> www.apache.org/cocoon/faqs/02050308
> www.apache.org
21 matches
Mail list logo
