Slightly-too-freeform notes on the various docs follow...
I believe this is now thoroughly obsoleted by XUL etc. Would it make
sense for me to to 'cvs remove' it? Perhaps hanging on to the intro
paragraph for recycling elsewhere?
This also leaps out as innacurate (the architecture doc) and
unrepresentative of the variosu cool things built since was written.
Is there a better 'XML home page' on mozilla.org or shall I just tidy it
up? It's linked too from a number of places so needs fixing.
Persistent client store - http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/pcs.html
- this is now misleading. Your persistence is into XML files
or bookmarks.html and the berekeley stuff is on hold, right? We could
add this to an 'get involved -- projects' sectoin maybe? As I understand
it PCS is not on the V5.0 feature list...?
Shack, implementing RDF datasources, other docs --- some of these are
really crusty now, but have perhaps got some historical interest? My
inclination is to remove but won't do this without sayso...
I can do some housecleaning but wantto get the balance right between
tidying and trashing. Do you see any value in having the obsolete docs
still accessible at those URLs? Of these, only
http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/rdfdatasources.html seems particuarly
worthy of a 'historical interest' corner.
The three 'roadmap' documents that are up there are also way old.
- this is a good basis for a "get involved" page but a bad roadmap. I
could rework it as such if you think ok.
State of the code doc - http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/code.html
- Delete; replace with links into CVS and bugtracker for now?
To-do list: http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/ntd.html
- someone who knows the code needs to look at this and update
Made a bit of progress with doc tidying. The tech overview has been interfered
with in various ways, as has front page at /rdf/doc/, for example to draw a
clearer distinction between the Mozilla RDF implementation (which has things
like a query API, ability to express -ve assertions etc) and the formal W3C
specifications (which generally have gone unmentioned in older docs). The main
RDF page is less misleading now and the older junkier docs have been unlinked
from that page. Basically we Ion't link it from main page or a subsidiary, it's
(as far as I'm concerned) a candidate for 'cvs -remove'.
Should we have a top-level 'tracking bug' for W3C spec violations w.r.t. the
RDF specs? (and XML specs?). Would be good to itemise the places where the
parser and query API don't accord with official specs...
Moving out non-critical tasks.
removing qa contact
clean enuf. will file new bugs if appropriate.