Rock on, Time. And Jay, you weren't kidding about the "painfully obvious." The ability to comment should be interesting.

And comments gives a great opportunity for user contributed examples. The examples is something which the current helpfile has been missing.

Do we get a printer friendly version of the new helpfile?

Yes, there will be a printer-friendly version as well as a bunch of other great features.

Y'all=Rock.

That's all I have to say.

There seems to be an issue with the styles on some (not all)archive pages, which is preventing the text from being readable in Opera 8. For example this page, the white background is absent, such that the font blends in the background colour. The page is readable in IE (though it pains me to open it). It's not every page that has this problem. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can figure out what might be up.

And as someone who is constantly referring others to specific tags and items in the manual, I'd urge the use of as many anchors to individual items as possible, if they are not on their own page, as the Comment Listing tags currently are. The ability to direct a licensee directly to a specific tag, rather than pointing vaguely to the Entries section of the manual would be preferrable, I think.

I appreciate that this is still a work in progress, and always will be, but I hope this is something that will be considered if it's not already part of the changes you've mentioned. The manual is my bible, and I'd love to be able to continue directing people to the relevant verses when necessary. ;-)

The Documentation is great !!! Lof of stuff covered and resolves some of the most vague tags/features in MT. The comment feature will be good addon.

But, since the documentation is powered by mt, will it be available for offline usage? I hope it ships with mt 3.2 and can be viewable just like mt 3.17 documentation(offline). Also, the 'style' and 'theme' of MT is not seen in the new documentation. It'd be awesome if you guys make it look like the MT 3.2 Admin Panel with some icons (if not, atleast with the matching colours and fonts).

Nevertheless, I appreciate y'alls hard work behind this !!!

MT ROCKS !!!!!!

Testing fix.

I haven't had a chance to read too deeply for content yet, but the "caution" class(ref) is pretty unpleasant to read. The background color is just eating the text. Any chance of toning it down a bit, or making the highlight a border/text color instead?

It worked! :-) How's it now?

Everything's fine in Opera7.5, but Opera8 still shows no background on chapters 3 & 4 only. Both browsers are pretty much completely default installs, incidentally.

Did you find something in the page source, or are you trying to fix the stylesheet? I think this might be a markup problem; at any rate, editing a stylesheet can be pretty futile if the source isn't in order first. Chapter 3 is showing a <mtelse> as an unknown tag in the source, and 20+ open list items. One or two are usually harmless, but letting them pile up like this can cause a lot of destruction. Chapter 4 has another element, "<multiple_cats>" used, which I assume was supposed to be a code reference, along with several more broken list items. Most other pages have only a few errors, and the later chapters in particular tend to validate fully.

Did you find something in the page source, or are you trying to fix the stylesheet?

Oh we're finding all types of little problems. Apparently, if Opera finds the slightest markup error, it seems to just give up... Firefox, IE and Safari are a bit more robust in handling a missing list item end tag and such.

The problem is that the docs were created in POD format and converted with a utility which had apparently been created when HTML 4.0 was all the rage. I've had to manually go in and fix all of the markup. It's quite annoying.

I'll be working on the docs from now until launch, so you'll see it improve over time.

Oversight? The archive path spec makes reference to an IndexBaseName config directive that doesn't appear in mt-config(beta4), or the manual's definitions of the directives, either.

While I appreciate the content of the new documentation, I'm not too keen on it's presentation. It's not that it's ugly per-se, it's the incredibly small column it's confined to. I've got a widescreen monitor (much like an increasingly large number of users are purchasing) and there's a LOT of wasted space on either side of the documents. It occupies literally a 1/5th of the available space on my screen.

Instead, I would suggest either a wider width, a percentage width for a jello/elastic layout, or just a liquid layout option (with a stylesheet changer). A thin column does help for readablility, but I think it's a little too thin.

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears an elastic layout would work best for people with poor vision and enlarged fonts. I have a friend who is legally blind and must have his font sizes incredibly large to read (he keeps my readability in check :). Increase the text size to see what I mean. Do the same thing on Mozilla to see what I'm suggesting. Something that grows with the text size would really help (since I'm probably going to be bumping up the text size two notches myself when reading).

We're finished with neither content nor the presentation of the docs. Give us some time. I appreciate the feedback though and I think we're all in agreement on the points you raised.

Sounds good. I look forward to whatever you decide on (in addition to MT 3.2 itself :D )