Re: Please comment on Online XEmacs Manuals

Hi Jarl! Jarl> On 14 Dec 2001, Adrian Aichner wrote: Jarl> [] Jarl> Yes. Good. I have linklinted them, so they better work :-) Jarl> I just wondering about the strange chapter/section numbering: Jarl> XEmacs user's manual: Jarl> 3.2 Command Line Switches and Arguments Jarl> 3.3 How XEmacs finds Directories and Files Jarl> 22.8 Packages Jarl> What a jump? Ah, yes, I saw that. I'll have to track that down. Nothing that I caused, I would hope :-) Jarl> My opinion: For every stable major.minor *and* the latest Jarl> (unstable) beta Every stable could expand to 19.0 .. 21.1, a long list, a lot of disk, very little value. I think we need a old-documentation-removal-criterion. Vin, what are your thought on this? How about most recent stable version only? Jarl> Both, but use symbolic names when making links, that would Jarl> be easier to bookmark, and refer to from other HTML Jarl> documents, but store them in version directories, that also Jarl> makes it possible to link to specific versions. I do now understand this. Please give examples. What I was getting at was that you need to write down a date for every http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/beta/... link you put somewhere. All those links have builtin expiry dates. http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.1/... is specific, only the link may point nowhere after its manuals are removed form the website after 21.4 is stable and put up instead. Note how 21.1, 21.4, 21.5 will be available along time, when referred to that way, as they go to the motions (beta, gamma, stable). I think beta, gamma, stable are convenient entry points to access these at a given date. When pointing to these for discussion or advice on mailing lists one would be well advises to use specific version numbers instead. One could say: You will always find the docs for the current beta release in http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/beta/... To see how new feature is used, refer to http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.1/html/xemacs.html#SOMETHING Jarl> The editor is unchanged (with respect to features) among Jarl> patch-numbers, so with that in mind major.minor should be Jarl> enough for documentation, but then again bugs are fixed in Jarl> documentation too from patch-number to patch-number. But for Good, I think we have agreement on this. Jarl> online it makes no sense to have other than the latest Jarl> patch-number available. Thanks, Jarl! Jarl> Jarl -- Adrian Aichner mailto:adrian＠xemacs.org http://www.xemacs.org/