<quote who="Kurt D. Zeilenga">
At 07:53 AM 12/7/2006, Gavin Henry wrote:
>> How much do you want to tell? That is, do you want to provide
>> more than an overview of LDAP? That is, do you want to write
>> document discussing LDAP basics?
>Do you think this would benefit potential users?
Certainly a good document discussing LDAP basics might
benefit users of OpenLDAP Software.... if you want to write
something like this, go for it. I'd suggest doing so as a
Understood. However, new content is harder to write than
rearranging/merging/rewriting existing docs. So, I propose we finish/add
the missing chapters in the admin guide, then move on to this guide.
Or we could start the skeleton layout, and get that in cvs for starters.
Then start a new thread for a TOC.
>My original point was intended to do a wee paragraph for each item in the
>glossary, much like the previous LDAP link I sent and for example, what
>you would find in the glossary of "Programming Perl".
>What we have just now is really "Acronyms and Abbreviations".
Yes. I meant it only as a starting point, as it contains
many of the terms one might one to define in a glossary.
While some of the tables now in the Appendix A may be
useful (like references), not sure if they all are.
I thought so ;-)
Presently I'm thinking that the General LDAP FAQ is a good
place to develop a glossary.
I also think it best to write it
Many of definitions you referenced are pretty bad.
I thought as much.
I rather base most of the definitions from the LDAP Technical
With a explaination in "laymans" terms I hope.
Are we concerned with the sdf format in anyway?
Is it still maintained?
Can we do everything we want with it?
If we are, then now would be the time to start with Docbook XML for the
LDAP Basics Guide and see how we get on.
My reasons are that that's what I've worked with on just about every other
OSS Project. I know it's power, and it's easy to go from it to a proper
published book, like the "Bruce Perens Series" (see the Samba Guides,
which are all Dockbook XML).
But I have absolutely no objections to sticking with sdf.