[drupal-docs] First thoughts

[Anisa]

judah wrote:

>>>
>>> Just setup a drupal site, create the table of contents in the 
>>> taxonomy, setup one of the wysiwyg editors for those that want to 
>>> use it and then starting adding content underneath those terms. You 
>>> don't have to use the book module. Just add a very nice tree menu on 
>>> the side and let people navigate with that.
>>>
>> Handbook should not be moved off drupal.org.
>
>
> The only reason I say to move it offsite is that we will have 
> different configuration options and operations that may not pertain to 
> the drupal.org. For example, if we are maintaining the book and we 
> will want to use or have the option to use the html areas. The guys at 
> drupal have been resistant to this and for most purposes the 
> drupal.org site does not need it. So I doubt they will use it. The 
> other thing is we need content editors to adminster and moderate 
> documentation and the content of the posts and also maintain user 
> contributed content. Ok, to sum up everything I'm trying to say is 
> that the book module may have or need a completely different 
> configuration than the drupal.org site itself. I want this project to 
> move forward quickly. Come to think of it, I think the guys at drupal 
> will be glad to add all the features and updates to the book site that 
> we need... (busts out laughing hysterically). Ok, for real, I 
> reeeeally doubt seeing that happen. Maybe when we get a site all up 
> and going and pretty they will say, "hey, let's put that back on our 
> site". Plus there is drupaldocs.org. plus, i just talked to the guys 
> at #drupal and they are not going to let anyone let us have the level 
> of control we need to get the stuff done. If you want to talk to them 
> jump on the irc and give it a go.

Hehe.  My reason for not setting up a new site is a user friendly 
thing.  You don't want to know how many sites I had to sign up on to get 
my nuke site running.  Naturally, with Drupal and distrib. 
authentication, that's not as much as a problem, but I personally like 
having one site for support.  If I search for a question, for example, 
book pages and forum posts will come up.

I am not sure what you proposed on IRC, but we probably need the 
following in terms of permissions:
1. Handbook maintainers: People who have the ability to admin the 
handbook. (edit, move, delete pages)
2. Contributors: People who can add pages directly to the handbook.
3. General public: People who can comment on pages to improve it, or, 
submit a new page that goes through moderation.

I really wobble back and forth between needing a wiki.  Can we use one 
for just a little while?

>>> Is there problems with the book module? YES??? Then let's write them 
>>> all down and give them to dries and say, "we want to do the book but 
>>> we need these features fixed".
>>
>>
>>
>> heh...  my preferred response to this violates my principles of 
>> happiness and lollipops...
>>
>> I will say that feature requests were filed for the book module.
>
>
> YES. I sympathize with you because I know you have done this. But do 
> not lose hope. If we as the HANDBOOK TEAM present a list of stuff we 
> need fixed it will add a lot more weight to our request. We can even 
> put all of our names on it and risk penalty of mutiny.
>
Hehe.  ^.^  I didn't do it precisely independently.  However, I would 
suggest that a direct and well-thought out appeal to the project lead 
would produce more results...  I just don't have the nerve.  ;)

>>> Or we could pool all our money together and hire someone to write 
>>> the book.
>>
>>
>>
>> No.  ^.^  It's a really sad state when you can't even write your own 
>> handbook.
>>
>> OK, so, in your opinion, the needed thing is a wysiwyg thingy?  
>> Perhaps the HTML Area module?  Or the TinyMCE one? Needs to be just 
>> for the handbook text fields, so perhaps the TinyMCE.
>
>
> YES! I've used the HTMLAREA and it is about 95% satisfactory. I have 
> yet to try TinyMCE but I think it will be just as good a solution now 
> that it supports image handling.
>
TinyMCE seems to have the ability to select which text areas you want to 
apply it to.

> Before I say let's set this up right now I think we need to figure out 
> the taxonomy issues.
>
> PURGIN: "To begin with, the table of contents for the existing 
> handbook has 740+ entries"
>
> I'm open to suggestions but if none are better than I think what we 
> should do is work it with the tools we have.
>
> I think we should setup a list of table of contents in the taxonomy 
> module. Then as we write content we will categorize it under the 
> handbook taxonomy terms.
>
> Then in the navigation we show all the taxonomy terms. Then when a 
> person clicks on "Install" he will get a results page of all the 
> documents that have been placed under that taxonomy term. He would see 
> "Install on windows", "Install on linux", "install on mac" and he 
> could click the one that he needs. That way we can better accomadate 
> collaborative writing for now, for the interim.
>
> After we get a good solid list of content under these terms we can 
> edit together an official "Drupal Handbook Revision" that shows up at 
> the top of the list would be edited version of all the best of the 
> contributed content. But I would still leave up the contributed 
> content. And content that comes in the future can be placed under the 
> taxonomy terms too. And can be added incrementally to the "Drupal 
> Handbook Revision" to include the changes.
>
> Does this make sense? Any objections?

I think a combination of the book module and taxonomy would create a 
better synergy.  You get the inherent structure of the book module, but 
then you also get the cross-indexing ability of taxonomy.

A combo sounds like it would be Drupally fun.

Always important to keep in mind is, this is to help the people who use 
the Drupal.org site, not to help the documentation team. 

what you think about the proposed new root books?

Anisa.