I believe that the best chance for documentation is continuous community
involvement, 'refactoring'. With editable Web-based documents, documentation
can perhaps converge to a realistic and quality document and I think that
the Squeak community is capable of that. (As for myself, I am just a lurker
here for now.)

Ivan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Rowledge [mailto:tim at sumeru.stanford.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:13 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: [DOCS] Project "Magic Book"
> 
> 
> Ivan Tomek <ivan.tomek at acadiau.ca> appears to have written:
> 
> > Yes. I think my point was that it is good to have an idea 
> of what one wants
> > to do and perhaps even write it down in an organized way, 
> but it's probably
> > going to change a lot as the project evolves and the manual 
> may then share
> > the usual fate of documentation - fall behind, never catch 
> up, describe
> > something else than the real thing.
> Indeed that is often the fate of any documantation, sadly. I 
> suppose we
> can only hope that
> a) it would help get things going in the right dorection
> b) get re-read later and remind people just what it was originally
> supposed to do (sometimes gets forgotten...)
> c) finally gets rewritten to reflect how to make good use of the end
> artifact.
> 
> Golly, sounds like real engineering doesn't it :-)
> 
> tim
> 
> -- 
> +================================================================+
> |Though a nation watched her falling, yet a world could only cry |
> |As they passed from us to Glory , riding fire in the sky.       |
> |(Jordin Kare, Fire In The Sky)                                  |
> |Farewell Columbia.                                              |
> +================================================================+
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> 
>