On Sep 22, 2011, at 05:54 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@...> wrote:
>> 1. If you want pretty and standardized PDF covers, scan one of the
>> good ones (with marked up changes) so I have something to work with.
Artistic license to the guy doing the work, but I'd be entirely happy with a dirt simple and clean style. We can always change it later.
An example keeping it (too) simple: http://l10n.kde.org/docs/markup/markup.pdf
Another example -- for years I've kept my eye on what the Firebird SQL folks have done as they were a very early Docbook shop with a setup just like we needed: http://www.firebirdsql.org/en/reference-manuals/
Best for last, though. A great example of keeping it simple and clean but adding a little elegance are the SUSE guides:
>> (The old ARL report numbers probably ought not to be used--in fact, I assume it wouldn't be legit, but the parentage should be shown in the front matter.)
> Yeah, the ARL report number as such doesn't apply except as an ancestor
> document... not sure what format to use for that - is there a standard
Not that I know of--the world's our oyster--as long as we have
authority (license) to use the material.
They report numbers are no longer relevant but should be embedded somewhere. Perhaps in a copyright/permissions section, what would be the copyright page in a book.
The original content of the entire tutorial series (and most publicly released ARL reports) are in the public domain, devoid of license and copyright. Remastering them as Docbook with new layout, content, and imagery allows the new additions and modifications to be copyrightable by (non-Gov) contributors, and for that we've been using the BSD Documentation License.
I'm more concerned about authors receiving perpetual and accurate credit for their doc contributions. If someone wants to sell the series or restructure everything into a book, more power to them. They just can't claim they wrote the parts they didn't write.
> You might ask Sean if he has a good svg version of the new logo from the
> competition you could incorporate, if we want to go with that instead of the
> old eagle logo...
I would just leave a placeholder logo image in there for now or a small version of the eagle if you must (just not a huge one centered like on the original). The new logo is going to take some time to prepare for consistent use, and that's not likely going to happen within the month.