Re: Feature Request: deeper TOC for pear.php.net manual

Alexander Merz wrote:

Greg Beaver wrote:

In addition, do the template engines in PEAR really require HTML to work? Why not put them into a category called "Templates" or "Template Engines?" Math/Numbers should be combined into one category, or differentiated more.

It would no problem to write, but this is the best way to confuse users.

I don't follow you. As a user, I would automatically search for a number manipulation package under "Math." I would look for a number text manipulation package under "Text." I would never think to look for a template engine under "HTML," that is completely illogical. Template engines are not tied down to an output format, they just spit out text in any format. Why couldn't HTML_Template_Sigma spit out XML DocBook, for example?

Also you lost a big advantage: an automatic link (not in sense of a hyperlink only) between package doc and the package itself.

I also don't understand this point. How would making the categories clearer remove this link?

Will thinking about peardoc2, i played with flatter and deeper TOCs, the current way is IMO the best compromiss.

IMO I disagree :). It's impossible to determine where a package's documentation is unless you already know. It creates yet another unnecessary obstacle to making PEAR user-friendly. Regards, Greg