On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> No need to apologize; afaik it is appropriate to submit content to this
> list (it isn't *that* high traffic, and documentation-types should be
> interested in this).
Oh ok. I just didn't want to look like a jerk in my first post to the
DOCS list :) Thanks for letting me know.
> OTOH, I apologize for my ignorance here: what is the "GNU documentation
> license"?
It's a documentation license with the same spirit as the GPL
basically. I only licensed it under the GFDL because it was the only one I
knew of. If that poses a problem for inclusion into the PG docs (which are
BSD licensed? how does the BSD licenso apply to documentation?) please
let's discuss it so we can reach an agreement.
All I want is to help the PG docs to be better. Is there a
"Documentation-TODO" somewhere? I'd be happy to tackle something else when
I finish PL/pgSQL.
On that topic (PL/pgSQL) I wanted to know from Thomas if it's ok for
mo to break the topics in the PL/pgSQL docs. I find that the
"everything-under-description" approach is confusing to refer to. It's
hard to see the topics, etc. Breaking up the topics under "description"
would also allow we to add more specific and rich examples.
That's one of the reasons I like the lpd.dsl stylesheet. It creates
tables of contents with <sect2>'s listed. (look at
http://www.brasileiro.net/roberto/howto for an example).
Thoughts?
-Roberto
--
+----| http://fslc.usu.edu USU Free Software & GNU/Linux Club|------+
Roberto Mello - Computer Science, USU - http://www.brasileiro.net
http://www.sdl.usu.edu - Space Dynamics Lab, Web Developer
Backup my hard drive?! I can't find the reverse switch!
