From Dan: Slightly-too-freeform notes on the various docs follow... http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/hypertree.html 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? http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/xml.html 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...? Various others: 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. Suggestions: http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/roadmap.html - 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.