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

At 09:47 PM 8/21/00 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:

At 21:38 21-08-00, Zak Greant wrote:

One major advantage of keeping the tutorials and other supplementary materials with the manual is that the PHP team will have control over the quality, presentation and licensing of the resources.

We'll have to live and see if that's true (IMHO it isn't). Uptil now, I don't think the material coming from the doc team was inherently better than the material from other sources; That's mostly because the actual developers of PHP rarely write documentation. The PHP documentation team is almost 100% PHP users, not developers.

When I say "... the PHP team will have control .." this does not mean that I believe that they will do the work. What I meant is that they will have control over what content makes it onto the site, what license it is under and how it is incorporated into the official php resources like the site, documentation, etc...

This is important because 3rd party sites are often not reliable - they go down, change their content and revenue model, become member only, are abandoned by their maintainer, etc...

I can see your point here, even though I don't think it's likely to happen. Sites like phpbuilder.com, zend.com and weberdev.com aren't likely to ever become members only. As far as reliability goes, they're much more reliable than php.net :)

:) True enough - the *major* resource sites do seem quite stable. Regardless of what is decided for a course of action, I do agree that the first, best step should be to get links up to the various tutorials that are available. Perhaps we should add them to the manual notes? - zak