[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GDP: summary and directions, 11 Sep

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: GDP: summary and directions, 11 Sep
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:33:16 -0700
User-agent: Icedove (X11/20070607)

Trevor Bača wrote:
That then leaves the question of what to do with the other stuff. What
about this?

  * Spacing: recast as a separate manual called Page Layout
  * Input and output: move to Program Usage
  * Changing defaults: move to Program Reference
  * Interfaces for programmers: move to Program Reference

Nu-huh, Program Reference is "where angels fear to tread", remember.  :P

That would then leave the following separate books:

(5 books)
I think that's getting too fragmented.

My initial reaction was "no way; we want to make tweaking more friendly, not less". But I had forgotten about the Learning Manual -- that clearly shows the beginning of tweaks, and (of course) more work is planned.


*IF* it were easy to move Changing and Interfaces into the program reference, I could almost buy that. That's a pretty big if, though.

If we renamed the Program Usage book, we _might_ be able to fit Spacing and Input in there. I'm not wild about it, though. But I definitely don't agree with making a separate book for Page Layout.

... ok, what about everybody else? Think about it for a few minutes before responding: my initial reaction was "WTF is Trevor smoking", but I'm starting to think he wasn't crazy.

Please remember the following:
- HTML links between documents is cheap and easy.
- introductions belong in the Learning manual. If you haven't skimmed through chapter 5, please do so. I'm planning on a least doubling the material in the LM, so users will have a good idea of how things work by the time they finish it. An extensive "how to read the other books" section will be included at the end of the LM.
- we officially have no sympathy for users who haven't read the LM.  :-)

For the record, I'm still opposed to this idea, but it's now a "weak reject". I could be convinced otherwise.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]