[Asterisk-doc] A new contribution to the effort

asterisk-doc@lists.digium.com asterisk-doc@lists.digium.com
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:48:35 -0400


>Subject: Re: [Asterisk-doc] A new contribution to the effort
>From: Jared Smith <jaredsmith@jaredsmith.net>
>To: asterisk-doc@lists.digium.com
>Organization: jaredsmith.net
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:22:16 -0600
>Reply-To: asterisk-doc@lists.digium.com
>
>Comments inline:
>
>On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 00:06 -0400, jim@digitalchemy.ca wrote:
>> I would like to contribute to Asterisk generally, and to the
>> documentation effort specifically.
>
>Great!  Welcome to the documentation project.  We'd greatly appreciate
>any help you're willing to throw our direction.
>> 

I'll do what I can. The XML-ish documentation format is still a bit strange to me so if it 
works for you I'll just post whatever I've got to the list as text. Meantime I'll see if I 
can get CVS figured out.

>> Asterisk allows you to craft a telephony system to address your
[snip]
>> be deployed with ease in Asterisk. For example, building an IVR
>> application or deploying CTI functionality can be done more
>> inexpensively than with any other system. Why? Because with Asterisk,
>> it's all built right in! 
>
>My only (minor) concern is that many readers of the book might not
>understand what PRI, IVR, and CTI stand for.  Other than that, I lvoe
>it.

Yeah I know what you mean. I found a few sentences were a bit heavy. On the other 
hand, only a few paragraphs on and we're telling the reader that they'd better 
understand Linux and Telephony if they want Asterisk to make sense. So we're not 
introducing anything in the intro that isn't prerequisite knowledge anyhow. 

With any body of writing one has to decide who the audience is and write for them. If 
we're assuming telecom knowledge, then I'd argue that PRI, IVR and CTI are terms 
we can reasonably expect the reader to be familiar with. 

If it's generally felt that those terms are too heavy for the intro then I'll have another 
go at the relevant sentences. 

>
>I think it's great.  I'm so happy about it, I'm going to check it into
>CVS right now.  Thanks again for your contribution!

You're welcome.



-- 
Jim Van Meggelen
DigitAlchemy
416-574-3164
www.digitalchemy.ca
jim@digitalchemy.ca