[ZDP] Zope Features doc

[Brian Hooper]

"Tom Deprez" <tom.deprez@village.uunet.be> wrote:

>  >i was looking at the Zope site today (well, like every day, i guess)
>  and i was noticing how much information there actually is already
>  there - for example, the Zope Features doc.  i think a lot of the
>  wording and examples in this document are really good, although a
>  little out of date; have you guys seen all of this.
> 
> yes, we know DC has great information. I've read all the docs of DC. That's
> the place where I received all the information for ZBook.
> Only the problem was that it was scattered over several articles etc.
> Also, it was difficult to place Zope in the whole web context.
> That's why I (and I think all the others here) contribute to ZBook.
i guess my point was that there are a lot of docs already on the Zope
site that are good but are in need of updating - for example, the Zope
Features doc, besides being hard to navigate (in my opinion, it would be
a lot easier to read without a <!--#tree--> tag) still makes reference
to 'Aqueduct' and 'Tabula'.  i mean, this is something that would be
easy to change...

> Now, we are going to chapters which are well explained in the docs of Zope.
> But I want to bundle some information together (easier for newbies).
> However I'm not intending to write something the same like DTML guide and
> Managers Guide. That are good information sources.
<opinion>
i'm all for making tutorials and beginner's guides.  however, as you
say, there are many old topics which are well covered in the existing
Zope documentation - on the other hand, there are still a lot of
undocumented features, new features which have been added with Zope 2,
and also many other Zope secrets which are well explained in the Zope
source code but are not available anywhere as documents.  wouldn't
covering these until-now-undocumented areas be a better use of
resources?
</opinion>

[snip snip]

> Sounds ok by me, if DC agrees. What do you propose?
DC folks -> any comments?

--brian