Hey,
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST? I find them both really difficult to work with, even in external editors. I find it a massive pain in the ass that a small syntax error (i.e. an extra space) on the bottom of the page can change the formatting in other parts of the page. Also, having to make a blank line between each element, (i.e. headers, paragraphs, bullets, etc) makes for really spread out code.
Right now, puredata.info is a mix of 4 different syntaxes: plain text, HTML, ST, and rST. I think this is a useless barrier that prevents people from contributing. I would like to propose we choose one syntax (or maaaybe two) for the whole site, including pages, wikis, etc.
I think that plain text should be one since anyone can do it (I could be convinced ot use HTML instead of plain text). Then I think that MoinMoin should be the other, since its very close to MediaWiki, which is what pdpedia is based on, and is easy and a broad standard.
I've brought this up before, but I don't think anything happened, so I thought I'd try again :D
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pdweb/2006-10/000423.html
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Hey,
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST? I find
i would prefer to keep ST.
- i use it throughout my work, so i am used to it. - you can include html-code (so everyone who wants to write html can just do so)
i have no strong opinion on rST though.
mfasd.r IOhannes
On Sep 26, 2007, at 2:58 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Hey,
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST? I find
i would prefer to keep ST.
- i use it throughout my work, so i am used to it.
- you can include html-code (so everyone who wants to write html can
just do so)
i have no strong opinion on rST though.
mfasd.r IOhannes
I have a strong opinion about ST, I think it has major usability problems. Minor changes at the bottom of a markup document should not mess up the formatting of a section above it. The indent-based formatting is inappropriate for editing text in a web form because with the word wrapping, it's quite difficult to tell what's deliberately indented and what's wrapped. Plus it's syntax is quite a bit different than other wikis, especially the widely used ones, so that means people have to learn it specifically.
My guess is that ST would be fine if 1) you are a python programmer and 2) you use a specialized editor for it. The way we use it, it is a hinderance.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
kill your television
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I have a strong opinion about ST, I think it has major usability
i thought that you would have a strong opinion... nevertheless
problems. Minor changes at the bottom of a markup document should not mess up the formatting of a section above it.
i have never encountered such a thing in my day-to-day use of ST. could you please give an example?
Plus it's syntax is quite a bit different than other wikis, especially the widely used ones, so that means people have to learn it specifically.
ST is not a wiki dialect per se.
My guess is that ST would be fine if 1) you are a python programmer and 2) you use a specialized editor for it. The way we use it, it is a hinderance.
i am neither a python programmer nor do i use a specialized editor for it (i use html-forms; no wysiwyg javascript sh!t)
mfga.dsr IOhannes
On Sep 26, 2007, at 11:32 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I have a strong opinion about ST, I think it has major usability
i thought that you would have a strong opinion... nevertheless
problems. Minor changes at the bottom of a markup document should not mess up the formatting of a section above it.
i have never encountered such a thing in my day-to-day use of ST. could you please give an example?
I've encountered it many times. I try to avoid formatting as much as possible when writing ST because it can be really erratic and difficult to debug. With mediawiki/dokuwiki/pmwiki, I have no such problems, I use formatting all the time, even more advanced things like tables and multi-level lists, and now Infoboxes with pdpedia.
http://puredata.org/docs/developer/HelpTemplate
Here's an example, why is "Standard Receive Symbols" grey and small? It has a new line before it, and is indented one space, just like the "Files" header.
Also, if you look at the "doc/pddp/templates/template..." lines, they do not look intended, because they are wrapped. But if you check, they are on the same line as the one above, which only has 2 spaces on it.
.hc
Plus it's syntax is quite a bit different than other wikis, especially the widely used ones, so that means people have to learn it specifically.
ST is not a wiki dialect per se.
My guess is that ST would be fine if 1) you are a python programmer and 2) you use a specialized editor for it. The way we use it, it is a hinderance.
i am neither a python programmer nor do i use a specialized editor for it (i use html-forms; no wysiwyg javascript sh!t)
mfga.dsr IOhannes
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST?
I will never give up reST. But where's the problem? IIRC you can choose between various formatting policies in the wiki pages (ST and reST are already two of them that are very different.) Just write your pages in something else.
Ciao
On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST?
I will never give up reST. But where's the problem? IIRC you can choose between various formatting policies in the wiki pages (ST and reST are already two of them that are very different.) Just write your pages in something else.
I am fine with leaving it in for personal use, but I think that the common sections should all be in the same format. Thinks like / dev/, /docs/, etc. I, for one, am quite tired of having to remember so many different syntaxs to edit various wikis.
So I guess it would not be a big deal if we left the options in, but we really should standardize the sections.
.hc
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
pdweb mailing list pdweb@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pdweb
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST?
I will never give up reST. But where's the problem? IIRC you can choose between various formatting policies in the wiki pages (ST and reST are already two of them that are very different.) Just write your pages in something else.
I am fine with leaving it in for personal use, but I think that the common sections should all be in the same format. Thinks like / dev/, /docs/, etc. I, for one, am quite tired of having to remember so many different syntaxs to edit various wikis.
So I guess it would not be a big deal if we left the options in, but we really should standardize the sections.
Ah, okay. No objections then.
Ciao
On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST?
I will never give up reST. But where's the problem? IIRC you can choose between various formatting policies in the wiki pages (ST and reST are already two of them that are very different.) Just write your pages in something else.
I am fine with leaving it in for personal use, but I think that the common sections should all be in the same format. Thinks like / dev/, /docs/, etc. I, for one, am quite tired of having to remember so many different syntaxs to edit various wikis.
So I guess it would not be a big deal if we left the options in, but we really should standardize the sections.
Ah, okay. No objections then.
Phew... that would have been so much easier at PdCon... oh well, email's what we've got :D
On that note, would it be possible to have MoinMoin syntax installed on puredata.info? Is there anyway I can do it to save IOhannes some work?
.hc
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
pdweb mailing list pdweb@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pdweb
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
On that note, would it be possible to have MoinMoin syntax installed on puredata.info? Is there anyway I can do it to save IOhannes some work?
the first thing is to check whether there is a MoinMoin parser for zope2.8/plone2.1.4
mfa.sdr IOhannes
On Sep 28, 2007, at 5:57 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
On that note, would it be possible to have MoinMoin syntax installed on puredata.info? Is there anyway I can do it to save IOhannes some work?
the first thing is to check whether there is a MoinMoin parser for zope2.8/plone2.1.4
mfa.sdr IOhannes
I mentioned MoinMoin because it's the closest one to mediawiki that's included in zwiki (or so they say on the frontpage: http:// zwiki.org/). Am I wrong in assuming that puredata.info is using zwiki?
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
The arc of history bends towards justice. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I mentioned MoinMoin because it's the closest one to mediawiki that's included in zwiki (or so they say on the frontpage: http:// zwiki.org/). Am I wrong in assuming that puredata.info is using zwiki?
while puredata.info's wiki system is zwiki, i think you are wrong in assuming that the entire puredata.info site is driven by a zwiki engine. puredata.info is far more than just a wiki.
apart from that: if the installed zwiki version supports moinmoin out of the box, you should be to enable it (after reading a bit of documentation): you have manager rights on the site and this might be enough. if you need a newer version of zwiki, please tell me which one.
mfg.asdr IOhannes
On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:13 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I mentioned MoinMoin because it's the closest one to mediawiki that's included in zwiki (or so they say on the frontpage: http:// zwiki.org/). Am I wrong in assuming that puredata.info is using zwiki?
while puredata.info's wiki system is zwiki, i think you are wrong in assuming that the entire puredata.info site is driven by a zwiki engine. puredata.info is far more than just a wiki.
apart from that: if the installed zwiki version supports moinmoin out of the box, you should be to enable it (after reading a bit of documentation): you have manager rights on the site and this might be enough. if you need a newer version of zwiki, please tell me which one.
It turns out MoinMoin is already installed, but it only shows up on "wiki folders", not "wiki pages". Anyway to change that?
.hc
mfg.asdr IOhannes
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:13 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
It turns out MoinMoin is already installed, but it only shows up on "wiki folders", not "wiki pages". Anyway to change that?
are you sure?
i just (2 days ago) enabled MoinMoin
fmgasdr. IOhannes
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:43 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:13 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
It turns out MoinMoin is already installed, but it only shows up on "wiki folders", not "wiki pages". Anyway to change that?
are you sure?
i just (2 days ago) enabled MoinMoin
Ah, that explains it. Thanks. :D
.hc
fmgasdr. IOhannes
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it, you can have it. - Dizzy Gillespie
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Would anyone here refuse to give up Structured Text or rST?
I just made some fixes to the Pd-FAQ and something occured to me: many of my fixes involved adding proper name and target identifiers to make the Table of Contents work, and I must say, doing this manually is a PITA.
reStructuredText can automatically build a TOC. See this in action on e.g. http://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/TipsAndTricks
Do you know if any of these Wiki formattings that you suggest as a standard also provides automatic TOCs? Because otherwise I would actually suggest to go with reST at least for FAQ-like pages. (Ah, heresy!)
Ciao
-
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Steffen