View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 11, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:00:15 +1100, nick <nick.atamas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Helmut Leitner wrote:
>>> Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
>>> newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki.
> 
> Why? The current one is workable and usable. You can contribute anytime
> to it.
> 
> --Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia

Yes, I suppose a more appealing layout (like Helmut mentioned) will be
on my TODO list.

And if you say the engine is good, I'll have to take your word on that.
February 11, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
In article <dsli87$2os3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
>
>Helmut Leitner wrote:
>> nick wrote:
>>> Helmut Leitner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
>>>> newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki.
>>>
>>> Walter, will you bless this idea?
>> 
>> nick <whoever>, I don't know who you are but your manners are
>> <SNIP>
>> fork or split that divides energies that should be focused.
>> 
>> Helmut
>> 
>
>My apologies. I really didn't mean to offend you. The existing wiki has
>helped me out quite a bit.
>
>I just don't like anything about the current wiki other than the
>content. Please don't take that as a personal attack (as you have
>clearly done).

"...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important aspects
of a wiki anyway? ;)

Maybe it's because I'm colorblind and have no sense of fashion, but I don't
understand why people are so offended by the current layout of Wiki4D. Maybe
it's just they're so used to Wikipedia that any other layout would seem like a
cheap knock-off? 

I know I've been using Wiki4D too long to have any kind of dispassionate
"outsider perspective", but it seems to me that our time would be better spent
trying to improve the content on Wiki4D than trying to get a movement started to
move content to another wiki system such as MediaWiki. Especially since if
someone wants to start another wiki (using the software of their choice), no one
is stopping them. ;)

jcc7
February 12, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
J C Calvarese wrote:
> "...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important aspects
> of a wiki anyway? ;)
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm colorblind and have no sense of fashion, but I don't
> understand why people are so offended by the current layout of Wiki4D. Maybe
> it's just they're so used to Wikipedia that any other layout would seem like a
> cheap knock-off? 
> 
> I know I've been using Wiki4D too long to have any kind of dispassionate
> "outsider perspective", but it seems to me that our time would be better spent
> trying to improve the content on Wiki4D than trying to get a movement started to
> move content to another wiki system such as MediaWiki. Especially since if
> someone wants to start another wiki (using the software of their choice), no one
> is stopping them. ;)
> 
> jcc7

Oh, I think starting a 2nd wiki would be a terrible idea - don't want to
split the community. I guess my only real gripe with this one is its
appearance. I will provide a more appealing (yet simple) template.

And you're right, content is the most important thing, but people judge
a book by its cover; it's in human nature.
February 12, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
nick wrote:
> Oh, I think starting a 2nd wiki would be a terrible idea - don't want to
> split the community. I guess my only real gripe with this one is its
> appearance. I will provide a more appealing (yet simple) template.
> 
> And you're right, content is the most important thing, but people judge
> a book by its cover; it's in human nature.

When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.
February 12, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
Helmut Leitner wrote:
> Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
> newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
> on issues that are connected with the wiki...
> 
> BTW if the Hasan's arguments would hold true, everyone here should
> use Java or C#, because they are slicker and more mainstream.
> 
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
>  > It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
> outdated *
> 
> Someone already commented on that. If you see it, please fix it.
> 
>  > , and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good
> 
> 
> It has a simple "content over form" layout.

I'm all for content-over-form. I always prefer google over yahoo.
Google is not only simple; it's "neat".
MediaWiki is simple and neat, prowiki .. well, isn't so much neat, and 
not even so simple.
- Header fonts are too big
- Colors don't really match
- Space is not really used effeciently.
- Editing is not so obvious .. registering/logging-in required?! I 
couldn't really figure it out.

I mentioned MediaWiki because it's about the only other wiki I know. 
Recently I was trying to investigate more into wikis and have seen some 
other wiki systems that seem to be good too.

It should be simple, yes, but simple in a "right way".
Google is simple, and it's greay, but so is this page for example 
http://www.geocities.com/~teddarnold/
,it's simple, but simple in a *BAD* way.
Simple is not always good.

I'm not an artist, let alone a web-page designer, so I cannot make a 
right decision on what it should look like.

Just giving my 0.02$
Please don't take it so negativly, I'm not good at diplomatic talk, for 
some reason or another, I tend to upset people when I voice an opposing 
opinion.
I apologise for any offence.
February 12, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
In article <dsm44v$4l7$1@digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

..snip...

>When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
>there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
>a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.

I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of
tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have
too limited of a view of modern.

(Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table)

jcc7
February 13, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
J C Calvarese wrote:
> In article <dsm44v$4l7$1@digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
> 
> ..snip...
> 
>> When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
>> there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
>> a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.
> 
> I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of
> tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have
> too limited of a view of modern.
> 
> (Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table)
> 
> jcc7

Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes:
1) When the data is tabulated (as in your example)
2) When CSS positioning proves inadequate (not everyone will agree).

If you disagree with this statement, I encourage you to examine modern
web technologies and present evidence to the contrary.
February 13, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
nick wrote:
> Helmut Leitner wrote:
>
> My apologies. I really didn't mean to offend you. The existing wiki has
> helped me out quite a bit.
> 
> I just don't like anything about the current wiki other than the
> content. Please don't take that as a personal attack (as you have
> clearly done).

Nick, no, I neither feel attacked nor offended.
But, of course, I accept your apologies.

The normal way is that you express your needs in detail,
so I get a chance to take this as a feedback, a basis
for discussion in the community, and a chance to satisfy you.

You can even get direct control over colors or layout as a kind
of "Layout achorman" for wiki4d if you want to invest more time.

Helmut
February 13, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
nick wrote:
> J C Calvarese wrote:
>>"...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important aspects
>>of a wiki anyway? ;)

> And you're right, content is the most important thing, but people judge
> a book by its cover; it's in human nature.

still books are designed very differently. A programmer's reference is
usually not done like an book of art, a phone book not like a encyclopedia,
an whodonnit not like a school book.

Besides content (what Justin means) and design (what nick longs for) there
are still a few issues of functionality that should not get lost:
e.g.
   - automatical linking (which saves a lot of time, at the - for us programmers -
     small cost of spelling correctness)
   - simple interwiki linking (in this case into this newsgroup, and the D website)
     using shortcuts like "Phobos:threads" see http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Context
   - hierarchical page structures for project-oriented workspaces

Wikipedia/Mediawiki is specialized (and good) for its target application
but beyond their immediate needs and slick design the ice is very thin.

Helmut
February 13, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
nick wrote:
> J C Calvarese wrote:
> 
>>In article <dsm44v$4l7$1@digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
>>
>>..snip...
>>
>>
>>>When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
>>>there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
>>>a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.
>>
>>I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of
>>tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have
>>too limited of a view of modern.
>>
>>(Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table)
>>
>>jcc7
> 
> 
> Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes:
> 1) When the data is tabulated (as in your example)
> 2) When CSS positioning proves inadequate (not everyone will agree).
> 
> If you disagree with this statement, I encourage you to examine modern
> web technologies and present evidence to the contrary.

Nick, again I wonder about your arguments.

Since when is "modern" an argument? Exactly here in this place?
If it were, there would be no reason to have a D programming
language because there are enough languages that are more "modern".

On the other hand, for the wiki user it is not visible what basic
CSS or HTML elements or commands are used. But I would react immediately
if someone argued an advantage for him, that comes for replacing
the table code and that compares not too badly with the approx. one
hour of work that I would have on that way.
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home