View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 16, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
Helmut Leitner wrote:
> 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.

I think I read somewhere that the css elements are usually faster to
render than complex tables. In addition to that, css styles are more
centralized&omdular and can reduce server bandwidth. The first argument
isn't very significant since wikis are dynamically created, but the
latter results in faster client side operation (because style sheets are
common for all the pages - no need to download them every time) and also
eases the workload of the server. Helmut, maybe you can consult Walter -
he has just converted all the official D docs to HTML 4.0 + CSS.

IMHO Prowiki is currently more than adequate (Helmut, I really thank
you) and there's no much sense in forking alternative D wikis since the
community isn't yet that huge. Using the latest w3c standards might help
selling the product and make it faster, but there's no compelling need
to do it.

-- 
Jari-Matti
March 04, 2006
Re: Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?
Nick wrote:
>>>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.

Helmut Leitner wrote:
>>
>>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.

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> I think I read somewhere that the css elements are usually faster to
> render than complex tables. In addition to that, css styles are more
> centralized&omdular and can reduce server bandwidth. The first argument
> isn't very significant since wikis are dynamically created, but the
> latter results in faster client side operation (because style sheets are
> common for all the pages - no need to download them every time) and also
> eases the workload of the server. Helmut, maybe you can consult Walter -
> he has just converted all the official D docs to HTML 4.0 + CSS.
> 
> IMHO Prowiki is currently more than adequate (Helmut, I really thank
> you) and there's no much sense in forking alternative D wikis since the
> community isn't yet that huge. Using the latest w3c standards might help
> selling the product and make it faster, but there's no compelling need
> to do it.

We could go into long discussions about this bundle of assumptions
and their relevance within the wiki engine framework.

But in short: ProWiki is going OpenSource in about two weeks and I'm
will do a vast amount of cosmetic changes during the next weeks and
probably during the next 3-6 months when contributors to the project
will request to have their view of optimum implementation represented.

The point where some change is easier to do than to lead continous
discussions is reached quickly.

I hope that I will be as diplomatic and efficient as Walter in dealing
with such issues.

Helmut
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home