mlhim-owners team mailing list archive

[Luciana Tricai Cavalini <lutricav@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim,

I understand the need for standardization. It is really important in OS
projects. Especially when you are dealing with our level of complexity here.

So, I am +1 for migrating to ODF and +1 for defining a template, but I
don't have any suggestion to give as far as which template to choose goes.

Cheers,

Luciana.


Em 18/02/2011 19:57, Tim Cook escreveu:
> 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
> 
>  

-- 
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antiv�s e
 acredita-se estar livre de perigo.