Re: Living documents?

Subject: Re: Living documents?
From: "Barry Campbell" <barry -dot- campbell -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "Dan Goldstein" <DGoldstein -at- riverainmedical -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:26:50 -0400

On 5/16/06, Dan Goldstein <DGoldstein -at- riverainmedical -dot- com> wrote:

Finally, someone's defined the difference between "not living" (can be
updated by a new part number or revision number) and "dead" (can be
used, but not updated). In light of Geoff Hart's earlier post, should
"not living" documents be filed under "Shaun"?

Any objections to the phrases "constantly evolving" or "rapidly
evolving" to describe the phenomenon of frequently changed/updated
documentation? (Apart from theological ones, of course.)

I'm convinced in re "living documents" and will attempt to refrain
from this usage in the future. :-)

- bc

Barry Campbell <barry -at- campbell-online -dot- com>

WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today!.

Doc-To-Help includes a one-click RoboHelp project converter. It's that easy. Watch the demo at

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

RE: Living documents?: From: Dan Goldstein

Previous by Author: Re: FAQs
Next by Author: Re: Living documents?
Previous by Thread: RE: Living documents?
Next by Thread: RE: Living documents?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads