[mapserver-dev] RE: Documentation

[Mark Volz]

Steve,

As a user of Mapserver here are some of my comments about the documentation:

*       I don't think that multiple versions of documentation need to be maintained in HTML format.  Old versions can be documented in a searchable PDF format, or perhaps an ePub document on the website.  I think that would be easy to maintain, and it would be easy for users if the older documentation is easy to find on the website.
*       Statements such as "Depreciated in 6.0", "Changed in 6.0", and "New in 6.0" help indicate to users that we might need to reference the older documentation.


Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:42:01 -0500
From: Steve Lime <sdlime at gmail.com<mailto:sdlime at gmail.com>>
Subject: [mapserver-dev] Documentation Question
To: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAMrKZ99-Ysc-kvySQV=a8Kn7+Sak3qUz1aYzELebOXxsmyBE7w at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAMrKZ99-Ysc-kvySQV=a8Kn7+Sak3qUz1aYzELebOXxsmyBE7w at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Question for folks. What's our position regarding multi-version support within the documentation? For example, there were a number of syntax changes related to logical expressions in 6.0. We could update the documentation to reflect 6.0 "as is" with no references to how things worked in older versions. We could also try to maintain some backwards compatibility so that the documentation could support all versions. Doing so requires lots of extra explanation though and makes it harder to maintain. If documentation is version specific then that would argue for historical documentation to be made available...

Thoughts?

Steve



Mark Volz
GIS Specialist



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20110722/e58a4f39/attachment.html