The Documentation

[Mark Smith]

I wonder if what we need is some standardised format for rev doc  
webnotes?

Though I lke the idea of one centralised source/repository, it will  
require someone to host it and maintain it, and though Andre (with  
BvG Docu-webnotes), and others (with wikis, web-pages etc.) have  
kindly shown willing to take this on, perhaps it will be more  
realistic if the idea ever takes off (requiring potentially quite a  
lot of space, bandwidth, and maintainence) to have these resources  
distributed around any and all who want to contribute.

This might even be a suitable use for XML. Notes (or whatever we  
choose to call an atom of information) could be in the form of a  
comment on a dictionary entry, a scripting example, a how-to, a  
tutorial or a link to a tutorial etc.. They could be served as web  
sites, download repositories, or actual (self-updating?) stacks.

It would then be possible to make collections of these atoms, or  
collections of links to these atoms. I don't see that it's strictly  
necessary for it all to be integrated into the RunRev documentation,  
though that's certainly possible (as in the BvG/Andre docs).

I think Andres' web-notes are a good starting point, with an author,  
a UUID and content. Add a 'type identifier', and maybe some mechanism  
for revisions.

Just a thought.

Best,

Mark