[TYPO3-doc] DocBook: storage structure

[François Suter]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback.

> - Is it really mandatory to make a difference between Guide and
> Tutorial? The difference is rather thin and it introduces unnecessary
> level in the structure IMO. Personally, I would merge the branch "Guide"
> and "Tutorial" into one. Maybe we can call it simply "Tutorials" or a
> bit longer "TutorialsAndGuides"

We thought quite a lot about those 3 categories and there's a real 
reason for the separation. I can imagine that it's not very clear by 
looking at the current documentation, but the whole point is to have 
these categories and improve the situation.

The tutorials are really meant to be step-by-step instructions to 
discover a given topic. Guides are meant to be in-depth explanations of 
some subject. This is quite different.

> - About "SystemExtensions": there is the idea in the air to improve the
> TER to have the support of official "core" extension and therefore make
> it possible to ship a light TYPO3 Core. This new category of extensions
> will be called: "core" or "community"? This is not yet defined but I
> wanted to raise the issue. Maybe "CoreExtensions" would make more sense
> (for the future?)...

Well, the TER team should definitely not do something about sysext 
manuals without checking with the Doc Team.

Personally I think we should detach documentation from the TER. The 
goals are so different. The TER is about making extensions available. Of 
course, these extensions many have manuals, but the TER is not designed 
to handle documentation in a satisfactory way and I would say it's 
outside of its scope to do so.

If we manage to have a global repository for the whole documentation - 
extensions included - we can make it all accessible directly, via its 
own frontend. Manuals would not have to be artificially packages as 
extensions anymore.

> - It should be a language separation for every node, shouldn't it? I mean:

Yes, but I prepared that structure manually, so I just made one example ;-)

> There is also the open question if we have to use GIT or SVN as a
> storage system. SVN may be easier to use and have few tools already
> working (Docbook Online Editor) but OTOH GIT is now our default source
> control for the CORE. I don't have a strong opinion about that.

This is slightly off-topic, but related, of course. I would expect 
moving to Git indeed, like the Core did.

>> As books are stand-alone
>> projects, I wouldn't expect to make a set for them either.
>
> I like the idea of the "books" branch.

Good :-)

Cheers

-- 

Francois Suter
Cobweb Development Sarl - http://www.cobweb.ch