[dev] Docs Module (was: Horde Summary Layout options, in HEAD maybe?)

[Ryan Gallagher]

Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>:

> Quoting Eric Rostetter <eric.rostetter@physics.utexas.edu>:
> 
> > >  - Expense Reports
> > >  - Form Letters
> > >  - Meeting Notes
> > >  - Process/End User Documentation (like you were envisioning)
> > >  - FAQs (like you indicated)
> > >  - Standardized 'Purposal' type documents
> > >  - Office Documents (such as Vacation Request Forms, etc etc)
> > >  - For where I work, things like Course Descriptions, Course Syllabi,
> > > Itineraries etc might be included in this list.
> > >  - etc...
> > 
> > I think the only difference between this and existing document formats is
> > perhaps forms.  So if we found one that did forms, we should be okay.
> 
> Well, a bunch of these sound more like templates than document formats...

Yes, and perhaps i'm stretching the definition of a 'document' a bit much.  But
i think the main point I was going for is that the system would ideally 'flex'
to accomodate a un-forseeable variety of document types.  But this is mostly an
issue when trying to allow for web-editing.  Otherwise, the flexibility comes
from the DTD(or Schema)/XSLT. 

> > Yes.  The only thing CVS really buys here is 1) existing technology and
> > 2) versioning.  Other than that, it isn't important.
> 
> 2) there is a rather large win :)
> 
> -chuck

Agree'd.  The only real improvement you could hope for beyond what CVS provides
would be a "structure-aware" method of versioning.  I'm not even sure how this
would work in CVS.  I know docs (such as SGML) are maintained in CVS all over
the place, but does the CVS System itself know the difference between a "line"
and a delimited "element" spanning many lines?  But this is a finer point,
normal versioning should be plenty for most needs.