Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 21:30:51 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How do folks feel about legitimizing the `style split' in our docs? Message-ID: <21952.821079051@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Jan 1996 21:17:28 PST." <Pine.BSF.3.91.960107210942.275C-100000@localhost>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> Sounds like a good idea. I have two comments, though: First, I think > that the Handbook SHOULD be split in the sense that the first section > NEEDS to be focused for new users (assuming a mixture of readership > between people new to Unix and experienced Unix admins new to FreeBSD). Well, I still don't see that as grounds for a "split" so much as a "beginner's section." I agree that the new users definitely need a blinking neon arrow pointing at *some* section of the handbook. > Second, some chapters are difficult to split in this way. Take "my" > chapter, on Kernel Configuration (btw, John, I reread that for the first OK, so I see that the paradigm breaks down for a few sections. Perhaps that simply points to the need for a (gag-inducing word coming up) meta-paradigm! :-) In english, what I'm saying is that perhaps we should extend the concept of howto/expert level documentation up one level then so that the novice users never even *see* your Kernel configuration document unless they follow a link that leads them over to the `How it works' section material. I mean, we've got this fancy SGML thingie, can't we make several `virtual documents' from the same source material? Why should we confine ourselves to one "top level representation" of The Handbook? Jordanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21952.821079051>