On 12/29/2020 6:40 AM, Marcus wrote: > Am 29.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:24 AM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages? >>> >>> On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>>> my personal opinion is very simple: >>>> for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the >>> current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in >>> my opinion). >>> >>> This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, >>> like the main >>> OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our >>> preservation >>> purposes. >>> >>> For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but >>> maybe we can >>> find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the >>> HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search >>> engines will not be misled into outdated pages. >> >> How do we want to define "outdated pages"? > > in general, for me a page is outdated when there is a new one with > updated content. > > If only parts are outdated, then the complete page cannot be outdated. > Then we have to mark only the respective parts as outdated. >
This has been a problem on the wiki for years, even before the project came to Apache. It has only gotten worse as we have hemorrhaged people capable of keeping these pages up to date. >> Many pages are seemingly(!) outdated, but in reality they are needed >> (e.g. for the daily voluntary support on mailing lists or in forums). >> Look e.g. at the extremely important pages with technical info for the >> creation of extensions: >> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extensions >> > > Maybe we should send pointers to these collections of pages to dev@ and > judge case by case what to do. > That may be the best way to proceed at the moment. If we know what articles need work we can pool our resources and develop a plan to update what we can to a usable level. regards Keith >> These pages are outdated in parts, but still there is no more current >> information. >> >> >> We don't need a super solution, we just need a reliable(!) archive for >> previous web and wiki pages, i.e. an archive of which we are sure that >> it includes all previous content. >> >> Of course, an 'intelligent' search engine tagging would be a >> nice-to-have, but I wouldn't really want to spend time on that, >> especially since, as I just described with an example, it's difficult >> to clearly tell which pages are really outdated. >> >> Much easier, and imho functionally sufficient, would be a footer on >> each archive page informing that this is an archive page plus a link >> to the start page (web and wiki) of the current pages. > > The footer is only visible when you scroll comletely down. But many > pages are longer and the searched information is maybe not far away from > the top. Then you don't notice that the content is outdated. > > I don't recomemnd to put it in the footer. Having it on top is more > helpful. > > Marcus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
