--- "Dimitrie O. Paun" dpaun@rogers.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:04:08PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote:
But I don't see any reason not to put it in
wine-doc-html.tar.gz or
wine-doc-txt.tar.gz. The idea of these tar files
is so that one can get
all the Wine documentation with just one download
and the FAQ is part of
the documentation.
Yes, but I can not possibly see why would anyone want to download and read the FAQ like this. A FAQ is essentially a Web type of document, best view and browsed on the Web. By including it in those packages, we just make them bigger for 99.99% of the users that don't care about the FAQ, and those users are probably the ones that have most bandwidth restrictions anyway.
But I'm not totally against it being there, if people feel strongly that we must, I'll go with the flow.
As a web developer (and Wine user), I feel inclined to believe that all major documentation should be removed from the source. A README file pointing the user to the web site for the latest documentation would be most efficient and beneficial.
Basically, by doing this, users will begin realizing that if they want documentation, WineHQ is the place to go. In a sense, it is streamlining information. Not only does this reduce user confusion, but it also minimizes the propagation of old documentation which no one will have the power to update. By not consolidating the documentation resource, there will eventually be a certain percentage of the Wine userbase trying to follow outdated Wine documents.
Hiji
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/