Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#14074 closed (wontfix)

RFE: "Best of both worlds" for short and long?

Reported by: JonathanHayward Owned by: nobody
Component: Documentation Version: 1.2
Severity: Keywords:
Cc: Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: no Needs documentation: no
Needs tests: no Patch needs improvement: no
Easy pickings: no UI/UX: no

Description (which may not be distilled as far as "short and sweet" allows) says, "Here's how to use Django ModelForm in a nutshell; if you want to dive in, consult the official docs."

I don't know that all areas of Django admit as good a "short and sweet" version where 10% of the material covered in the official documentation covers 90% of the use, but would it make sense to have, in the documentation, a "short and sweet nutshell" section at the top, and then "full details" which would be largely unedited versions of the existing documentation? Again, I don't know that this area is representative, but existing Django docs would be improved by having something do the job an abstract does in an academic publication. Even if someone really needs the full details, a brief orientation in the nutshell might help ward off "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome.


Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by Gabriel Hurley

Resolution: wontfix
Status: newclosed

While giving people the "short and sweet" version is always nice, there's very little consensus on what "short and sweet" ever really needs to cover. It's a very subjective topic.

Django's docs are divided up into sections to some degree along those types of lines already... there are sections for introduction, how-to, in-depth topic guides, and thorough reference pages.

So, in short, this issue is too broad to ever really be completed. If you feel there are specific pages in the docs that lack a proper introduction, feel free to open tickets for them individually with suggestions (or patches) for what ought to be contained in them.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
Back to Top