Re: The PDF generator on the toolserver has implications for quality control on a per-chapter basis

Hey all,

Sorry, but I don't have much in the way of positive encouragement
today. Just a couple of
wait-is-this-really-what-we-should-be-doing-with-our-time sort of
comments.

On 11/24/07, mike.lifeguard <[email protected]> wrote:
> The question becomes, then, "Do we want stable versions of one kind or
> another?"

Do we need stable versions. I don't really see the need. Perhaps
someone could give examples of stable books that have deteriorated due
to the ease of editing. I understand the motivation of wanting to have
some type of "stable" stamp to give books a stamp of validity, the
absence of which a wiki might imply.

I have nothing seriously against stable versions, though I think the
stable/unstable branching is unhelpful (what was that policy that had
the unstable version ... <dripping sarcasm>boy was that a good
idea</dripping sarcasm>). I think like-minded people wouldn't really
jump out and oppose this feature as it seems it's purely optional
(I'll oppose it in my corner of Wikibooks) but I'd like to ask
proponents of the feature to consider the possibility that, though
noble and interesting, this little project may not be the most useful
or needed one and that there may be other areas that could use their
time and skill better.

That said, it's a volunteer project and in the spirit of wiki, I'm
glad for anyones bold contributions to it.

> Further, if we do, then are PDF versions the way we want to do it.

They wouldn't be my first choice. First of all, as a transition
technology until the server software solution would arrive, I'm still
doubtful that that there really is such a pressing need. The dead-easy
method is, of course just to copy a version to /Stable_001/ (this
would of course be as easily editable as a PDF version would be
reuploadable).

The first time I saw the idea of PDF versions, they were posed in the
context of creating printable versions. Is this possibly a solution in
search of a problem?

If we want printable versions, I suggest we go for CSS print versions.
They're simple, flexible and made for electronic media. They have low
overhead in typesetting which is valuable since I doubt many Wikibooks
will make it to print.

Not that they /shouldn't/ get distributed, but rather that most won't
get distributed on paper. Yes, I prefer reading off paper but that
comes at a price and the loss of interlinking. With ever more mobile
devices and technologies like the (currently awfully expensive) Sony
Reader the time is coming for paper to exit ... stage left.