[wp-docs] WIKI - WPHacks/Docs

[Cena]

 Craig, I really like your thoughts about WPHacks.  [Caveat:  In some 
ways, I'm beginning to think that this isn't something that really 
belongs on the docslist...it's sort of a separate thing from documenting 
WP itself and how to use it.  I think as far docs go, we should probably 
have a relatively generic 'what they are, how to implement them' doc and 
let it go at that.]

However, your ideas about the WP APPROVED hacks are great!  More to the 
point, I think they perfectly encapsulate what I was trying to say in 
our earlier exchange about 'official' docs vs. 'any old shit I put on my 
blog'.

So..we can modify these a bit and make them applicable to the docs, like so:

-The documentation must be presented in a  XHTML compliant format. 
(maybe someone could provide us with a template to work from?)

- Appropriate credit must be given for ideas or code snippets used from
other sources.

- The doc must be spell-checked and grammatically correct.  [Christian brings up a good point here about docs written in languages other than English.  Maybe Christian writes crappy German, and who knows any differently (besides other Germans?) No assumptions are being made about Christian's actual proficiency with German *grin*].

- Perhaps a stipulation that the information contained in the doc be checked by X number of others before release?

-Must submit docs for review before release.


To continue with Craig's suggestions:

>In return, WordPress would
>
>- Include the doc in a specific WP [doc] section of the WP site
>- Allow the author(s) to display a badge showing their doc as being WP
>APPROVED
>- Promote the doc as being an official WP doc.
>- Include [it] in the WP documentation.
>  
>
>Anyway, for me, the bottom line is that if you want the tool kit to be
>considered as one of the best, then the [docs] need to be in the same league.
>
Amen to that!