Re: Documentation (re)organization

[Kaloian Doganov]

Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> writes:

    No, there will be a separate manual web-translators.texi.

Isn't it an overkill?  May be a single document with separate sections
whould be enough for now.

    The reasons are that GNUN developers != GNU web translation
    managers, although there is some overlap.  The former will edit the
    GNUN manual, while the latter will edit web-translators.texi (which
    will be of organizational nature, like maintain.texi).

Organization of reading material should not be decided on the means of
who will edit it, but on who will read it.

    Also, we concluded that GNUN might be useful for external sites, so
    we'd like the manual to be separate.

Currently GNUN is far from being useful anywhere outside www.gnu.org.
`GNUmakefile' follows the structure of www.gnu.org's layout and
`make-prototype' follows the current internal structure for GNU's
articles.

The system is not generalized at all, and it would be misleading to get
readers with such impression in documentation.

    It would be easier to just have web-translators.texi and gnun.texi
    without any @include-fu, but I want to have one single document for
    translators, that way it would be easier for them.

I agree with the goal that things should be easier for translators.
After all, the whole purpose of GNUN is to aid web translators (and
managers).  But I don't think that having "Hacking GNUN" section or
something like that in the (single) manual will defeat that goal.

My point is: let's keep it as simple as possible, and add complexity
only when it is needed.

Or may be I do not imagine very well the documentation structure that
you're proposing...