Re: Problem in x11.en.xml

On 2004/04/17, at 22:47, David H. wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Martin Costabel wrote:
>> Michèle Garoche wrote:
> <snip>
>> The next paragraph about MacGimp is also 3 years old. Keeping such 
>> outdated information around is rather embarassing.
> How so?
> I do not find it embarrassing to keep historical important 
> information. Someone might _choose_ not to run XFree864.4.0 for 
> personal reasons.
> I will agree, that we might have to find a way to either
> a) mark deprecated bits of documentation
> b) Introduce a section called "historic" where all such obviously 
> outdated but still valid information is found.
>
> So please Alexander and Baba, let's set a policy.

With this particular section, do we need to move it to historic 
section?  What is wrong with changing the version number to the latest 
available one?

Regarding historic section itself, I could say possible problems:
1. how do we identify a description is *outdated*?
Do we identify the latest x11 version and all the earlier versions are 
outdated?

2. Do users find it easy if they are in historic section?
Well, maybe.  If the user is using an older version, we can assume he 
is doing it on purpose, with good knowledge of x11 (or any program).  I 
still doubt if the user can easily find the historic section.

Thanks
--
BABA Yoshihiko

Town Planner (Kyoto Center for Community Collaboration)
Webmaster, Tokyo Linux Users Group (http://www.tlug.jp)
Support, Translation and Documentation Team, Fink Project 
(http://fink.sourceforge.net)



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Robotic Monkeys at ThinkGeek
For a limited time only, get FREE Ground shipping on all orders of $35
or more. Hurry up and shop folks, this offer expires April 30th!
http://www.thinkgeek.com/freeshipping/?cpg297