diff --git a/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteNavigation.txt b/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteNavigation.txt index 172b6543f..144c41a79 100644 --- a/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteNavigation.txt +++ b/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteNavigation.txt @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ WebsiteNavigation [grid="all"] `------------`----------------------- -*State* _Idea_ +*State* _Draft_ *Date* _Mi 08 Dez 2010 11:32:32 CET_ *Proposed by* Ichthyostega ------------------------------------- @@ -110,37 +110,22 @@ The following features would be handy, but can be considered optional Tasks ~~~~~ -// List what would need to be done to implement this Proposal in a few words: -// * item ... - - - -Discussion -~~~~~~~~~~ - -Pros -^^^^ -// add just a fact list/enumeration which make this suitable: -// * foo -// * bar ... - - - -Cons -^^^^ -// fact list of the known/considered bad implications: - - - -Alternatives -^^^^^^^^^^^^ -//alternatives: explain alternatives and tell why they are not viable: + * define markup for the various features ([green]#✔ done#) + * get a technical solution for the menu to work ([green]#✔ done#) + * write a script to traverse contents and generate the menu ([green]#✔ done#) + * test and integrate it into the website ([green]#✔ done#) Rationale --------- //rationale: Describe why it should be done *this* way: +Maintaining the navigation within a website beyond just some pages is a daunting task. +When frequent rearrangements of pages are to be expected, the only viable solution is +to automate this task. Moreover, there needs to be a secondary path to each page, +asside of the direct links which might or might not be provided. A automatically +generated navigation menu separate of the actual page content helps to address +these issues. @@ -156,5 +141,13 @@ Comments -------- //comments: append below +.State -> Draft +//add reason +A Menu generator script based on these principles is deployed and working +since a looooong time now. We still need to build the tagging facility though. +This is covered by another RfC. + +Ichthyostega:: 'So 07 Okt 2012 07:30:17 CEST' ~~ + //endof_comments: diff --git a/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteSupportMarkup.txt b/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteSupportMarkup.txt index 0f17c2253..2b4c6ad28 100644 --- a/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteSupportMarkup.txt +++ b/doc/devel/rfc/WebsiteSupportMarkup.txt @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ Alternatives * separation from the code tree, lack of seamless SCM integration * the general penalties of using a database backed system -. _writing our own integrated authoring framework_: obviously, this would be the perfect solution... + +. _writing our own integrated authoring framework_: obviously, this would be the perfect solution... Anyone(TM) to volunteer? @@ -224,6 +224,20 @@ Comments -------- //comments: append below +To put this RfC into perspective, I'd like to add that Benny and myself reworked several +of the introductory pages during our last meeting at FrOSCon 2012. We had some discussions +about what needs to be done in order to make the existing content more readily available. + +In the previous years, I've written a good deal of the existing content, so I might claim +some knowledge about the real world usage situation. This RfC is an attempt to share my +understanding about the inherent impediments of our setup and infrastructure. Especially, +when compared with a full-featured wiki or CMS, a list of the most lacking features +can be distilled; I am in no way against fancy stuff, but if we're about to dedicate +some effort to our infrastructure, it should be directed foremost towards fixing +those stuff which matters in practice. + +Ichthyostega:: 'So 07 Okt 2012 07:31:25 CEST' ~~ + //endof_comments: