Future of LFS

[Jeremy Huntwork]

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It seems that your idea is for a look and feel change along with a dynamic 
> change of the book depending on the type if PM chosen by the user.

No, not really, sorry if it came across that way. The page layout was a 
product of some other work I had been doing in unrelated (non-LFS) work. 
I had to format what was output so that it would be recognizable, and in 
doing so, I just used some code pieces and css I had on hand.

> Changing the look and feel may be a nice thing to do, but I wouldn't put it at 
> the highest priority.  There are lots of content issues that are more important 
> in my opinion.

It isn't a priority. If people want a change in the look of the book, 
that could come later.

> Setting up for multiple PM types introduces a reasonably high level of 
> complexity.  I think it also could detract from the learning aspect of the book 
> as it selectively removes things.  We also don't know yet how to do one method 
> of PM, let alone multiple methods.

If we do one, we are doing multiple. By that I mean that I believe if we 
introduce a PM method, we still want to allow people the choice of 
whether to use that or not, correct? So we will have at least two 
choices, PM-based instructions, or no-PM instructions.

I don't know what you mean by 'selectively removes things'.

> An issue that is not clear to me from your link is how I can make a change on my 
> system locally and render the book and review the results before committing the 
> change.

Heh, which is probably why I should have waited before presenting it, so 
that more concepts would be clearer. A more robust POC would also have a 
'Submit' button. The preview button just renders the page on your 
screen, while a submit would make a commit to the server.

--
JH