Does Mallard = Loss of Editorial Control?

[Phil Bull]

Hi Kyle,

This is definitely something that we need to look into.

On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:29 -0500, Kyle Nitzsche wrote:
[...]
> Mallard's brilliant addition is plugability. That is, a package can add 
> content to previously installed content. A package does not need 
> permission to do this: the framework supports it intrinsically. That is 
> its strength, and, in some cases, its weakness.
> 
> Consider this applied to System Docs:
> 
>  * Packages other than ubuntu-docs packages can add content to the 
> Ubuntu Help Center

>  * That content may be technically incorrect
>  * It may contradict content in Ubuntu Help Center
>  * It may be written poorly or to different standards
>  * It may not be localized
>  * It cannot be prevented

Yes, I can see someone thinking that it's a great idea to have a link to
their pet man page on the Help Centre front page, however irrelevant it
is to most people.

One way around this is through packaging policy - if someone puts an
inappropriate link in, it should be classed as a bug. This should be
quite easy to monitor as the package would need a dependency on
ubuntu-docs (since the .page files need to be put in the same directory
as the ubuntu-docs ones). This is not a very robust strategy, as there
are plenty of ways around it.

> Now consider the user experience:
> 
>  * Users may not be able to differentiate the official content from the 
> new content

Yelp originally put a brief copyright notice at the bottom of every
document. Maybe this could be reinstated?

>  * Content that they used to find in one location has moved (as new 
> plugged topics fill in guide pages)

Shaun has implemented a system for ordering links on guide pages. I
haven't had chance to play with it yet, though. Perhaps it could be
extended to prioritise on other variables, like author?

>  * They cannot get rid of content that suddenly appears or revert to 
> pure ubuntu-docs

True. We could end up with a situation where third-party developers spam
the documentation.

[...]
> Setting aside concerns about source format (docbook vs mallard), 
> limiting build options and output formats to those supported by mallard, 
> and etc. I think this is the biggest potential problem with mallard for 
> ubuntu docs: it represents a loss of editorial control in the area that 
> most requires high quality content: system docs.

Mallard is still in development, and I don't foresee this being an issue
until it's in wider use. I'll raise this on the GNOME docs list.

Thanks,

Phil

-- 
Phil Bull
https://launchpad.net/~philbull