Hey all,
Sorry, but I don't have much in the way of positive encouragement today. Just a couple of wait-is-this-really-what-we-should-be-doing-with-our-time sort of comments.
On 11/24/07, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
The question becomes, then, "Do we want stable versions of one kind or another?"
Do we need stable versions. I don't really see the need. Perhaps someone could give examples of stable books that have deteriorated due to the ease of editing. I understand the motivation of wanting to have some type of "stable" stamp to give books a stamp of validity, the absence of which a wiki might imply.
I have nothing seriously against stable versions, though I think the stable/unstable branching is unhelpful (what was that policy that had the unstable version ... <dripping sarcasm>boy was that a good idea</dripping sarcasm>). I think like-minded people wouldn't really jump out and oppose this feature as it seems it's purely optional (I'll oppose it in my corner of Wikibooks) but I'd like to ask proponents of the feature to consider the possibility that, though noble and interesting, this little project may not be the most useful or needed one and that there may be other areas that could use their time and skill better.
That said, it's a volunteer project and in the spirit of wiki, I'm glad for anyones bold contributions to it.
Further, if we do, then are PDF versions the way we want to do it.
They wouldn't be my first choice. First of all, as a transition technology until the server software solution would arrive, I'm still doubtful that that there really is such a pressing need. The dead-easy method is, of course just to copy a version to /Stable_001/ (this would of course be as easily editable as a PDF version would be reuploadable).
The first time I saw the idea of PDF versions, they were posed in the context of creating printable versions. Is this possibly a solution in search of a problem?
If we want printable versions, I suggest we go for CSS print versions. They're simple, flexible and made for electronic media. They have low overhead in typesetting which is valuable since I doubt many Wikibooks will make it to print.
Not that they /shouldn't/ get distributed, but rather that most won't get distributed on paper. Yes, I prefer reading off paper but that comes at a price and the loss of interlinking. With ever more mobile devices and technologies like the (currently awfully expensive) Sony Reader the time is coming for paper to exit ... stage left.