Rogier Peters wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 22 oct. 04, � 12:23, David Crossley a �crit :
<snip/>
What's needed IMHO is the "big bag of docs with powerful search functions" that we talked about before (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106586497031048&w=2 for example).
I like the idea, but let's make sure we end up with very usable URIs. IMNSHO we *have* to have URIs of words, and not something like /docs/foo/3446521.html. It's just not good. I propose we try to "correctly" reorganize the docs before resorting to BBOD with crazy URIs. I have some decent experience with organizing and reorganizing site docs from previous jobs, so it can't be all that hard, can it? :)
If we agree on this, the next step would be to evaluate Forrest against our needs and find out the simplest thing that would work. Maybe Forrest using a live SVN repository, live Lucene indexing and mod_cache in front would be all what we need?
Having "live docs" would be a boon to the documentation. The biggest hurdle I face when I work on docs is the fact that I have to edit the original xdocs, commit those, and (re- generating the site and committing a second set. A live Forrest would be awesome.
Although I agree completely that it's the accessability, not the quality of the documentation that is lacking, i can't help but hearing echoes of the GT cms-shootout ( bag of docs; heavy on search ).
Why use forrest and not daisy or hippo?
Rogier
Tony
