[Bf-docboard] Propsal: fundamentals, citation

[Tobias Heinke]

Hey Campbell,

Thanks for the reply.

As I said, linking to terms still works and the definitions are still 
compact.
Searching through the terms is possible thanks to the index.

The Blender Manual never was a pure software manual (specification), it 
can't because of the audience it addresses.
And Funda is even a step into the direction making the manual more about 
the software
by separating the non Blender specific content.

The problem of a centralized glossary is it get messier with every new 
term added and cleaning it up is not fun.

Hierarchy occurs naturally and is currently expressed by link between terms:

     Anti-aliasing: MSAA, FSAA...
https://www.blender.org/manual/glossary/index.html#term-anti-aliasing


Non of the paper I cited sofar belongs to that category technical paper,
in the sense of detailed information about the implementation of a 
technique.

I disagree, that these papers are just interesting for developers.
The citation fulfills the different purposes of pioneer papers and 
recommended literature.
Why these pioneer papers have to be cited I have written in the previous 
mail.

Fundamentals doesn't becomes outdated:
Eric Veach PhD thesis "Robust Monte Carlo methods for light transport 
simulation" from 1997 still holds up.
And Blinn will still be the one who introduced bump mapping to 3D CG.
c.f. http://old.siggraph.org/publications/seminal-graphics.shtml

Tobias

Am 15.06.2016 um 16:11 schrieb Campbell Barton:
> Am quite against replacing the glossary,
> in computer graphics their are many cryptic terms (FSAA, SSS, gimbal
> lock, ngon... etc),
>
> As an author you can write :term:`FSAA` which links to the glossary,
> if the term is missing, you get a warning and you can add it.
> The descriptions generally short and to the point, with links to
> expanded information where appropriate.
> There is also no need to manage page hierarchy, add new categories,
> think about where each term *belongs*.
> its a big list which is easy to search and linked to as needed.
>
> What you suggest is a more general document on computer graphics
> fundamentals which is OK,
> but outside the scope of a software manual.
>
> >From reading what you have so far, its quite esoteric from a user
> perspective and more of interest to developers, with links links to
> technical papers on each topic.
> People interested in such papers can find it themselves searching
> online and don't need us to spend time on a document for this, which
> is likely to be outdated in a few years anyway.
>
> eg:
>
> http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/physics/phy_matter.html
> http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/computer/com_light.html
>
> Or, if there is some need for a document like this, I think its
> different enough from a software reference manual,
> that it can be maintained as a separately (which the manual could link
> to, when it makes sense, as with any other web site).
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Tobias Heinke
> <heinke.tobias at t-online.de>  wrote:
>> Hi Campbell,
>>
>> Yes, to replace the glossary.
>> First I want to keep the glossary parallel to Fundamentals and then
>> dissolve it into Funda term by term.
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>> Am 14.06.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Campbell Barton:
>>> Hi Tobias,
>>> are you proposing
>>> http://blender-manual.readthedocs.io/en/testing/fundamentals/index.html
>>> be moved tohttps://www.blender.org/manual/
>>> and maintained in our subversion repository along with the rest of the manual?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-docboard mailing list
>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20160616/7497df6b/attachment.htm