On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 07:40:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> One trick is to set the width and clipping on "dt > *" instead of "dt", and use "calc(...)" for dynamic sizes.

I considered that too, but since I wanted the dt to float, the width had to be set there.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:14:08 +0200, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised.

A cease and desist for making Boost-licensed documentation available in another medium. Kind of violates the spirit of being an open source project, no?

The only grounds potentially available for a C&D letter are based in trademarks. For the D Foundation to succeed with this sort of thing in general, they'd need to start an explicit trademark licensing system and assiduously go after people who use the trademark without a license. (Non- enforcement is grounds for losing trademark status.) That's probably not going to happen. Too much work and too much negative publicity.

And you appear to be recommending this as a punitive measure for comments in another forum. Can you imagine the reaction? Every time anyone posted an article about D, the comments would be full of "hope you don't get sued".

You're issuing a threat that you have no standing to fulfill, where those who do have standing have every incentive not to fulfill it and no particular reason to listen to you.

> Your matter of fact insulting of our official docs
> (which are leaps and bounds better than the new stuff you are making) is
> destructive to our community.

I've seen far nastier comments than Adam Ruppe's on this forum (it's a huge stretch to call his "nasty"), and nastier than yours, and unproductive to boot, and nobody objected to them. Seeing a person threatening someone for trying to help and providing specific feedback, while worse goes unnoted, is demoralizing and probably worse for the community.

> Having a different kind of search and having a different layout that is more succinct is "Super Awesome" and you are doing it, but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult the work on the main site.
> 
> _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_.

It's not a division. It's a documentation mirror with a different layout.

> Having
> competing designs can be very helpful, (e.g. your layout could be nice
> for Google search results), official docs are nice because you don't
> have to constantly jump around the site while working.

There's pretty much no advantage to having three hundred declarations on the same page with no cross-references and only top-level declarations indexed.

Cross-references plus all-in-one-page might be okay, but then you'd be comparing Adam Ruppe's work with a hypothetical evolution of dlang.org docs.

> <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat,

Please, disable HTML mail for this list.

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 11:14:08 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
> If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised.

http://forum.dlang.org/post/n5sf7o$mu1$2@digitalmars.com


Andrei isn't exactly enthusiastic (though later on, he softens a bit), but I'm convinced we need to change course anyway.

Of course, if they did try more harsh measures, I'd fight it, and then we'd see a far more problematic division in the community.

> but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult
> the work on the main site.

I see a distinction between insults and technical criticism. A navigation bar that is difficult to navigate is a technical problem - and there's a technical solution. Changing the color of template constraints is like shoving toys under the bed when your mother is about to inspect your room. It might fool her for about two seconds, but she's going to see it anyway and will not be pleased.

And more importantly, it doesn't actually clean up the dust, or organize the toys, or discover the dirty laundry that got mixed in to the floor.


It is an easy "solution" that you can quickly do without a lot of work, but it isn't actually fixing anything. It is solving the unreadable mess problem by shoving half of it under the rug instead of actually making it readable.

(And putting the text "Constraint:" before is silly too. Anyone who knows what that means also knows what if() means in this context, and anybody who doesn't isn't going to learn anything from it.)


If dlang.org fixed these problems, I'll set my site to redirect to their site again like it used to do. But, as I've described before, I don't think it will change in that direction without a major, multi-faceted overhaul.

I'm doing that overhaul now. And my content changes are available for upstream: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895

Minor content so far, but lots of cross referencing, fixing missing comments, organizing, etc.

though some of it also relies on the generator changes, so it isn't something they can just merge and forget about...

> _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_.

It might be such a small community because of the weakness in its documentation. I've interviewed a LOT of new and prospective D users over the last several months and every one of them, without exception, expressed difficulty to me in navigating the official site. Several of them just went elsewhere and didn't look back.

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 17:54:41 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> It's not a division. It's a documentation mirror with a different layout.

Well, there are a few content changes too. You can see my diff as it develops here:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895

(I'll rebase and squash commits and all that jazz some other time. I'm editing files as I notice problems or opportunities for improvement, so it is kinda random rather than a thematic set of atomic changes.)

I'm also working on writing wholly original articles and tutorials to link throughout.

Lastly, the site also includes docs for several of my libraries (e.g. http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/simpledisplay.html or  http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/arsd.cgi.html, and I plan to open it up to third party projects as well (maybe even automatically scraping code.dlang.org), so everything can be searched in one place.


So it is a bit more than just a mirror with a new layout :)

On 12/30/2015 08:32 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> It was rejected. Walter didn't see what the problem was and I was told
> to just write $(LT)span$(GT)foo$(LT)/span$(GT). Seriously.
>
[...]
>
> The idea (and working program) was rejected because the team felt a
> post-processor was the wrong way to do it.

That's been quite possibly THE biggest thorn in my side discouraging me from contributions. I've seen, and personally run into, plenty of cases where a non-existent ideal implementation becomes the mortal enemy of progress that already exists. I could ramble off a whole list of cases.

It's sooo much easier to just do my own thing and "get it done" than waste effort on politics and playing the "is this worthwhile?" game with people who prefer wasting their time defending stagnation over stepping back and allowing others to just get problems fixed, even if not in an perfectly ideal way.

I'll take a temporarily imperfect solution over vaporware ideals any day.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:14:08 +0200, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
> > If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised.
>
> A cease and desist for making Boost-licensed documentation available in another medium. Kind of violates the spirit of being an open source project, no?
>
> The only grounds potentially available for a C&D letter are based in trademarks. For the D Foundation to succeed with this sort of thing in general, they'd need to start an explicit trademark licensing system and assiduously go after people who use the trademark without a license. (Non- enforcement is grounds for losing trademark status.) That's probably not going to happen. Too much work and too much negative publicity.
>
> And you appear to be recommending this as a punitive measure for comments in another forum. Can you imagine the reaction? Every time anyone posted an article about D, the comments would be full of "hope you don't get sued".


The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's
resentment. Your email validates
what I was suggesting he should avoid.

>
>
> You're issuing a threat that you have no standing to fulfill, where those who do have standing have every incentive not to fulfill it and no particular reason to listen to you.
>
> > Your matter of fact insulting of our official docs
> > (which are leaps and bounds better than the new stuff you are making) is
> > destructive to our community.
>
> I've seen far nastier comments than Adam Ruppe's on this forum (it's a huge stretch to call his "nasty"), and nastier than yours, and unproductive to boot, and nobody objected to them. Seeing a person threatening someone for trying to help and providing specific feedback, while worse goes unnoted, is demoralizing and probably worse for the community.
>
> > Having a different kind of search and having a different layout that is more succinct is "Super Awesome" and you are doing it, but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult the work on the main site.
> >
> > _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_.
>
> It's not a division. It's a documentation mirror with a different layout.


Did you read my mail at all?

>
>
> > Having
> > competing designs can be very helpful, (e.g. your layout could be nice
> > for Google search results), official docs are nice because you don't
> > have to constantly jump around the site while working.
>
> There's pretty much no advantage to having three hundred declarations on the same page with no cross-references and only top-level declarations indexed.


>
>
> Cross-references plus all-in-one-page might be okay, but then you'd be comparing Adam Ruppe's work with a hypothetical evolution of dlang.org docs.
>
> > <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat,
>
> Please, disable HTML mail for this list.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 11:14:08 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
>>
>> If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised.
>
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/n5sf7o$mu1$2@digitalmars.com
>
>
> Andrei isn't exactly enthusiastic (though later on, he softens a bit), but I'm convinced we need to change course anyway.
>
> Of course, if they did try more harsh measures, I'd fight it, and then we'd see a far more problematic division in the community.
>
>> but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult
>> the work on the main site.
>
>
> I see a distinction between insults and technical criticism. A navigation bar that is difficult to navigate is a technical problem - and there's a technical solution. Changing the color of template constraints is like shoving toys under the bed when your mother is about to inspect your room. It might fool her for about two seconds, but she's going to see it anyway and will not be pleased.
>
> And more importantly, it doesn't actually clean up the dust, or organize the toys, or discover the dirty laundry that got mixed in to the floor.
>
>
> It is an easy "solution" that you can quickly do without a lot of work, but it isn't actually fixing anything. It is solving the unreadable mess problem by shoving half of it under the rug instead of actually making it readable.
>
> (And putting the text "Constraint:" before is silly too. Anyone who knows
> what that means also knows what if() means in this context, and anybody who
> doesn't isn't going to learn anything from it.)
>
>
> If dlang.org fixed these problems, I'll set my site to redirect to their site again like it used to do. But, as I've described before, I don't think it will change in that direction without a major, multi-faceted overhaul.
>
> I'm doing that overhaul now. And my content changes are available for upstream: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895
>
> Minor content so far, but lots of cross referencing, fixing missing comments, organizing, etc.
>
> though some of it also relies on the generator changes, so it isn't something they can just merge and forget about...
>
>> _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_.
>
>
> It might be such a small community because of the weakness in its documentation. I've interviewed a LOT of new and prospective D users over the last several months and every one of them, without exception, expressed difficulty to me in navigating the official site. Several of them just went elsewhere and didn't look back.

100% bro, I'm not referring to making a separate implementation or anything like that I'm saying: "As a 'important user' in our community your voice counts for something and be careful what you say".

Surely everyone can agree on that?

On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's resentment. Your email validates what I was suggesting he should avoid.

My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events.

The problem you cited was "insulting our official docs" and (nonexistent) community splits resulting from the insults. Your predicted / recommended response to that problem was "a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation".

There's no evidence that you considered trademark issues at all until I brought them up. If I'd cited copyright infringement instead, I'm betting you would have jumped on that, even though the docs are Boost-licensed.

What I would actually expect, instead of a C&D letter, is a set of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem.

An airtight set of guidelines probably requires a trademark lawyer, which probably costs more than the D Foundation has in its coffers. We might see a preliminary set of guidelines coming out in the next year or so.

I don't see how a criticism of the official documentation (even one you believe is insulting) fragments the community. Most people around here think D's documentation is a problem. Adam Ruppe provided both specific feedback and an implemented alternative, which is much more constructive than average. He's got a pull request for content changes that he's made, too, which is the opposite of fragmentation.

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> What I would actually expect, instead of a C&D letter, is a set of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem.

The last time this was discussed it came up that the creator of the logo has not transferred the rights, so you would have to ask the creator of the logo for usage that goes beyond the website.

Unless this has changed there is no way for "D Foundation" to register the design as a trademark. And the letter "D" itself cannot be used as a trademark, so if you want to trademark a "D" logo it has to be very specific.

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:14:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> What I would actually expect, instead of a C&D letter, is a set of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem.
>
> The last time this was discussed it came up that the creator of the logo has not transferred the rights, so you would have to ask the creator of the logo for usage that goes beyond the website.
>
> Unless this has changed there is no way for "D Foundation" to register the design as a trademark. And the letter "D" itself cannot be used as a trademark, so if you want to trademark a "D" logo it has to be very specific.

Here is the relevant link:

http://media.sukimashita.com/d/

Please note:

«The following pictures are ideas for different styles as an
effort to create a common logo for the D programming language community.»

«COPYRIGHT © SUKIMASHITA 2006
ALL FREE TO USE. ONLY SELLING THESE IMAGES IS PROHIBITED.»

So clearly, Adam and anyone else can use these images, at least unmodified. The version he is using is a derived work so he probably should clear that with the original author.