> We could add a "Can read docs" permission. For some reason I thought
> we already had that, but I guess we don't...
+1 for that. For World Online, I originally displayed the link only for
users that had WebDAV permissions to access templates, but that's not a
universal situation.
On 1/17/06, Jonathan Daugherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with the trust point you make, but I think his [very valid]
> point is that the admin area just doesn't seem like the right place
> for the docs to live by default.
We could add a "Can read docs" permission. For some reason I tho
# The admin interface shouldn't be considered the "user" interface --
# it's the interface for trusted content editors. If you can't trust
# them with implementation details, it should be trivial to create a
# urlconf based on the admin one that leaves out the doc views.
I agree with the trust p
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:27 PM, oggie rob wrote:
Maybe it's just me...
I doubt it's *just* you...
Why in the world would we want development documentation in the admin
interface? I noticed that the "Documentation" link was added to the
user links section, but none of the users of any real world
Maybe it's just me...
Why in the world would we want development documentation in the admin
interface? I noticed that the "Documentation" link was added to the
user links section, but none of the users of any real world application
I can imagine would benefit from that documentation.
Even having
