mlhim-owners team mailing list archive

[Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 20:41 -0300, Luciana Tricai Cavalini wrote:
>  Aren't we trying to "make
> things as simple as possible, but no simpler"? For me, template-free
> ODFs are "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler", because
> otherwise the alternative is having incomplete documentation, which is
> the "simpler" situation.

I appreciate your sentiment (I've heard that quote before somewhere).  

Here is my rational for asking for a template:

ODF tables of contents & other tables of ... all use Styles to determine
what goes into one and where. 

Styles also define which fonts are used which determines how layouts are
viewed and how extracts are produced (PDFs, etc). 

Since the context in a Documentation ODF, is defined by the layout and
there will (hopefully) by many different authors.  I highly suggest that
we define a template for all MLHIM documentation.  It doesn't mean we
can't change it if we need to but not having one will lead to a mess of
different styles and types. This lack of consistency will be a detriment
to comprehension in the future.

--Tim

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part