Skip to content

docs: move licensing into orientation, and close three navigation inconsistencies - #19

Open
LKSNDRTMLKV wants to merge 2 commits into
stagingfrom
docs/licensing-nav
Open

docs: move licensing into orientation, and close three navigation inconsistencies#19
LKSNDRTMLKV wants to merge 2 commits into
stagingfrom
docs/licensing-nav

Conversation

@LKSNDRTMLKV

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Targets staging, not main.

Licensing moves out of The Engine

The open-core split describes both parts — Apache-2.0 for the core, BSL-1.1 for the engine — so filing it under the engine section was miscategorised. It is now last in Getting Started, which is where orientation material belongs.

The page moved with it, /engine/licensing/getting-started/licensing, because a page sitting in orientation while living at an engine URL is the kind of small incoherence that accumulates. The old URL redirects, and /design/open-core now points straight at the new location rather than chaining through the old one. Free to do now: the page has never been published, so no external link exists to break.

The introduction stops restating the licences

It carried its own licence table. That is a second home for a fact whose home is now the Licensing page — and a restated fact is exactly what goes stale while the original is corrected. The two-part table stays, because what the two parts are is genuine orientation; the licence column is replaced by a pointer.

Three inconsistencies found while checking the result

Core Concepts pointed at a section that does not exist. "Each idea has a fuller treatment under Design Principles" — there is no such section, and every /design/* path redirects away. Rather than delete the sentence, each of the three ideas now names where it is treated fully: the data boundary, licensing, and the sector seam. Two already had that pointer; the third did not.

Scan telemetry was disclosed in only one of the two places that needed it. The landing trust page describes it. The docs page whose opening sentence promises to state "precisely what Odal can see, cannot see, and could see but does not" said nothing about it — which makes the omission worse there than on the marketing site, because the claim around it is stronger. It now carries the same disclosure: an aggregate per passport, per day, per surface, with no column in which anything about the scanner could be stored, and QR renders counted separately and never summed into scans.

A dead sidebar entry for a page that has never existed. Verify a passport yourself → /core/verify was commented out in the sidebar with no source file anywhere in the repo. That is the same shape as the licensing entry that produced four published 404s — a commented-out nav entry outliving whatever it was waiting for. Removed.

And one link restored. The home page's "Read the full breakdown →" link to /trust was commented out because the trust page was not routed. It is routed now, so the link works — the page was otherwise reachable only from the privacy policy.

Verification: build green · check 0 errors / 0 warnings / 5 hints · 828 internal links across 45 pages resolve · leakage clean · old /engine/licensing URL confirmed redirecting to the new path in the built output.

…stop restating the licence split on the introduction
…ter to a design section that no longer exists, and restore the trust-page link now that the page is published
@cloudflare-workers-and-pages

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploying odal-node-docs with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: 054865f
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://0d56a451.odal-node-docs.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://docs-licensing-nav.odal-node-docs.pages.dev

View logs

@cloudflare-workers-and-pages

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploying odal-node-landing with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: 054865f
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://e677e10c.odal-node-landing.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://docs-licensing-nav.odal-node-landing.pages.dev

View logs

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant