Re: Re: "waldschrotts guide to nifty references" - manual page draft, version 0.9b

At 23:46 20/08/2000, eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote:

We don't have two lines of people. We have two editors. And one of the editors believes that the manual should be as complete as in every book you can buy now.

Uhm, the manual isn't nobody's personal toy, and the editor role in that sense is technical, not 'strategic'. I really see no point in the manual competing with the books. If you try to be everything, you end up doing a poor job. I'd concentrate at having a good reference manual (and by design and layout, it is a reference manual, rather than a book that tries to teach you what PHP is), without making strict rules as to what should go in and what shouldn't. The loose guideline should be that things that are beyond descriptions of what a certain feature or function does should not be in the manual. People can add examples in the annotations, but I don't see in-depth discussions or tutorials as things that belong in that manual. Zeev -- Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> http://www.zend.com/