Quoting Thomas Finneid <tfinneid@...>:
> I have to say I disagree with having the documentation in a wiki.
> The sourceforge wiki pages are a mess, full of clutter not relevant to
> me when I want to read the documentation and get some work done. Jde is
> a tool I use at work, so I dont want to waste time with superfluous
> navigation, looking at adverts etc when trying to learn how to use jde.
while the sourceforge wiki is a bit clunky, it's certainly not a
cesspool of rampant advertisements (esp. with adblock in your
life)...and i don't see how a wiki format will result in "superfluous
compared to the html docs.
> Additionally, I need the documentation to be available to me offline as
this is a perfectly valid point (and one i agree with), but the
*larger* goal of pushing the docs into the wiki is to breathe a bit of
life into them in a format that is more malleable in a community
setting. hopefully the wiki format will facilitate a bit more
communication regarding the docs, which i think it is already doing,
judging from this thread...
in the meantime, the wiki has export functionality that may suffice...
> What I was thinking was to redesign the web pages and the documentation
> with the same design principles as that of postgressql.org or go-oo.org
> (a fork of open office).
postgressql.org is up for sale if you want it...and a search for
documentation on go-oo.org just led me directly to a wiki (Developers
tab > Resources > first link & the only one in bold text)...but now
i'm just being nit-picky ;)
> In my opinion, the biggest problem with emacs and jde is that
> documentation and such are poorly designed and focuses only on how a
> lisp programmer thinks about things. This makes it really hard for
> newcomers to come to terms with what emacs and jdee can provide of
> benefits and how it works.
> Yes, most emacs users are programmers, but when I use a tool to do
> another job, I dont want to have to consider how the tool is built, I
> just want to use the tool. So I want documentation that addresses that
> aspect. When I want to extend the tool, then I can look at documentation
> for developers.
mr. kinnucan seems to have already addressed this sentiment, so i'll