3 ms·

I don't understand what is going on here - I read this before on https://diataxis.fr https://diataxis.fr - so I guess this is some sort of fork: 2021-04-07: ht

I don't understand what is going on here - I read this before on https://diataxis.fr https://diataxis.fr - so I guess this is some sort of fork: 2021-04-07: https://github.com/evildmp/diataxis-documentation-framework/commit/ea432d3fb067a554840b789f98c5ad865e1b3ff5 https://github.com/evildmp/diataxis-documentation-framework/... Add license CC-BY-SA 4.0 2021-04-30: https://github.com/divio/diataxis-documentation-framework/commit/e0a5e428aab4c49a9be94685f8a5da1a1d213ba0 https://github.com/divio/diataxis-documentation-framework/co... Copyright change from Danielle Procida to Divio edit: fixed link

O__________O 4y ago
They’re officially related. Personally, prefer the link I used since it provides a table of contents and link to this YouTube presentation on the system: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vKPhjcMZg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vKPhjcMZg
mjw1007 4y ago
This variant seems worse than the dataxis one. It's already a weakness of this "theory" that it leaves only the reference for documentation that's intended to be complete and correct, while also recommending that the reference be organised as a list of the available operations. But this divio variant goes so far as to say that, when writing the reference, "don't allow explanations of concepts". I believe good documentation often needs rigorous definitions of the concepts involved, not just a list of functions or configuration items or whatever. So either the reference should have space for those, or the explanation should be in a more rigorous style, not a "more relaxed" discussion.
kaycebasques 4y ago
I think Procida initially created this as part of their work with Divio and then forked it to the Diataxis site. The Divio site was definitely around before Diataxis and the Divio site was where these ideas originally gained a lot of popularity.

O__________O 4y ago

They’re officially related. Personally, prefer the link I used since it provides a table of contents and link to this YouTube presentation on the system: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vKPhjcMZg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vKPhjcMZg

mjw1007 4y ago

This variant seems worse than the dataxis one. It's already a weakness of this "theory" that it leaves only the reference for documentation that's intended to be complete and correct, while also recommending that the reference be organised as a list of the available operations. But this divio variant goes so far as to say that, when writing the reference, "don't allow explanations of concepts". I believe good documentation often needs rigorous definitions of the concepts involved, not just a list of functions or configuration items or whatever. So either the reference should have space for those, or the explanation should be in a more rigorous style, not a "more relaxed" discussion.

kaycebasques 4y ago

I think Procida initially created this as part of their work with Divio and then forked it to the Diataxis site. The Divio site was definitely around before Diataxis and the Divio site was where these ideas originally gained a lot of popularity.