• Hasan Aljudy (17/17) Dec 05 2005 It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite
• J C Calvarese (15/22) Dec 05 2005 I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the ...
• Lars Ivar Igesund (8/38) Dec 06 2005 I suppose this is a matter of taste, and for my part it is mostly relate...
• Hasan Aljudy (26/57) Jan 19 2006 Actually, I think the look & feel of the website matter.
• Helmut Leitner (97/109) Feb 10 2006 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
• nick (3/9) Feb 10 2006 We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki.
• Lars Ivar Igesund (2/13) Feb 11 2006 Did you read Helmut's post at all?
• Helmut Leitner (22/34) Feb 11 2006 nick , I don't know who you are but your manners are
• nick (6/25) Feb 11 2006 My apologies. I really didn't mean to offend you. The existing wiki has
• J C Calvarese (14/39) Feb 11 2006 "...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important a...
• nick (6/22) Feb 11 2006 Oh, I think starting a 2nd wiki would be a terrible idea - don't want to
• nick (4/10) Feb 11 2006 When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
• J C Calvarese (8/11) Feb 12 2006 I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than h...
• nick (6/22) Feb 12 2006 Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes:
• Helmut Leitner (10/37) Feb 13 2006 Nick, again I wonder about your arguments.
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (16/59) Feb 16 2006 I think I read somewhere that the css elements are usually faster to
• Helmut Leitner (14/46) Mar 04 2006 Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
• Helmut Leitner (15/20) Feb 13 2006 still books are designed very differently. A programmer's reference is
• Helmut Leitner (9/16) Feb 13 2006 Nick, no, I neither feel attacked nor offended.
• Derek Parnell (6/14) Feb 11 2006 Why? The current one is workable and usable. You can contribute anytime ...
• nick (4/21) Feb 11 2006 Yes, I suppose a more appealing layout (like Helmut mentioned) will be
• Hasan Aljudy (25/43) Feb 11 2006 I'm all for content-over-form. I always prefer google over yahoo.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's 
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example 
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is 
to use the MediaWiki package.
Almost all dead wiki's I've seen use something other than MediaWiki, and 
almost all successful wiki's I've seen use the MediaWiki. Maybe I'm just 
being delusional, but I think using a good wiki package plays a big role 
in the success of the wiki .. after all, it's all psychological, if it 
looks nice and organized, then it'll attract users, if not, then not!
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki


For those who happen to not know what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

In article <dn315a$2t3h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's 
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example 
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is 
to use the MediaWiki package.

I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the content.
People edit wikis, not software.

The bandwidth and setup effort has been generously donated by Helmut Leitner. He
has a wiki company. It's been the semi-official D wiki for quite a while now.
It's always been very reliable, and I think it's pretty easy to edit. If the
content is out-of-date, it might be because it's more fun to add content than to
edit content. If you see something that's out-of-date, please be our guest and
update it.

Also, Brad is adding Trac wikis to all of the dsource projects. But since Trac
isn't a MediaWiki either, I guess your problem remains resolved. ;)

(An earlier wiki was setup at http://dlanguage.netunify.com, but its bandwidth
was unreliable, and eventually it disappeared. I guess whoever owned the address
stopped paying for it.)

jcc7

Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:

J C Calvarese wrote:

 In article <dn315a$2t3h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is
to use the MediaWiki package.

 
 I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the
 content. People edit wikis, not software.
 
 The bandwidth and setup effort has been generously donated by Helmut
 Leitner. He has a wiki company. It's been the semi-official D wiki for
 quite a while now. It's always been very reliable, and I think it's pretty
 easy to edit. If the content is out-of-date, it might be because it's more
 fun to add content than to edit content. If you see something that's
 out-of-date, please be our guest and update it.
 
 Also, Brad is adding Trac wikis to all of the dsource projects. But since
 Trac isn't a MediaWiki either, I guess your problem remains resolved. ;)
 
 (An earlier wiki was setup at http://dlanguage.netunify.com, but its
 bandwidth was unreliable, and eventually it disappeared. I guess whoever
 owned the address stopped paying for it.)
 
 jcc7

I suppose this is a matter of taste, and for my part it is mostly related to
the wiki syntax. I've used both the Trac wiki and MediaWiki extensively,
and find the latter more powerful and with easier tagging, but then it is
also more mature. I find the integration between the wiki and the
tickets/changesets/etc very nifty, though. As for the Wiki4D, I've used it
too little to comment.

Lars Ivar Igesund

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

J C Calvarese wrote:
 In article <dn315a$2t3h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
 
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's 
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example 
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is 
to use the MediaWiki package.

 
 
 I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the
content.
 People edit wikis, not software.
 
 The bandwidth and setup effort has been generously donated by Helmut Leitner.
He
 has a wiki company. It's been the semi-official D wiki for quite a while now.
 It's always been very reliable, and I think it's pretty easy to edit. If the
 content is out-of-date, it might be because it's more fun to add content than
to
 edit content. If you see something that's out-of-date, please be our guest and
 update it.
 
 Also, Brad is adding Trac wikis to all of the dsource projects. But since Trac
 isn't a MediaWiki either, I guess your problem remains resolved. ;)
 
 (An earlier wiki was setup at http://dlanguage.netunify.com, but its bandwidth
 was unreliable, and eventually it disappeared. I guess whoever owned the
address
 stopped paying for it.)
 
 jcc7

Actually, I think the look & feel of the website matter.
Yes, people edit wikis, but people use the software to edit wikis, and 
people use the software to read the wiki. The software imposes several 
things on the wiki, including the look & feel of the wiki, i.e. the way 
information is presented, and that matters, /alot/.

I'm not dissing anyone .. I appreciate the effort put forward by Helmut 
Leitner and all the people who contributed to the wiki.

I'm just suggesting something because I'm trying to help, and who knows, 
  maybe I'm wrong after all. But let's ask something here:
- How many people like the idea of wikis?
- How many people visit wikipedia or other wiki sites?
- How many of those people visit the D wiki?

or let's rephrase the last 2 questions:
- Do you find that you visit wikipedia (or other MediaWiki based wikis) 
more often than you visit the wiki4D?

If my guess is correct, and the number of people who like wikis and use 
wikipedia, exceeds the number of those who use the wiki4D site, then 
let's ask:
- Why don't you use the wiki4D as much?

But ofcourse if I'm wrong, then never mind!

Few days ago I found this:
http://www.editthis.info
A free wiki host that uses MediaWiki. Anyone interested in making one 
for D there?? I would start one there myself, but I'm not good at 
managing websites and the likes of it.

Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:

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


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.

But if there is a consensus that a slicker layout is desirable
there are options:

    - chose from available layouts
      WikiIndex lists 42 wikis based on the ProWiki engine
      <http://wikiindex.com/Category:ProWiki>

    - create a new layout from some other layout template
      or from scratch or clone the MediaWiki design

The current layout template is really simplistic:
========
<html>
<head>
<title>{WikiName} (the wiki for the D programming language):
{PageName}</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="creation-timestamp" content="{Insert:DateCreation}">
<meta name="keyword" content="{Insert:MetaKeywords;Wiki Community}" >
</head>
<body {BodyTags}>
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=100% height=24>
<tr><td width=100% height=48 background="Wiki4D.gif">&nbsp;</td></tr>
</table>
<font size=3><br></font>
<font size=6><b>{PageTitle}</b></font><font
size=3><br><b>{PageTitleComment}</b></font>
<font size=3>&nbsp;<br></font>
{LinkBarTextHor}
<hr>
{PageText}
<hr>
{LinkBarTextHor}
{EditBar}
{SearchForm}
</body>
</html>
========
and it's not rocket science to adapt it to anything you like.

 , and I think that's a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

I can assure you that this is *NOT* the reason. I've put thousands
of work hours into building wiki communities and one thing is sure:
there is no strong relationsship between layout and success.

 * (look at the faq/roadmap for example
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

 The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is to use
the MediaWiki package.

It is very simple: just do it.
The license allows it. The pages can be exported.

 Almost all dead wiki's I've seen use something other than MediaWiki, and
almost all successful wiki's I've seen use 

the MediaWiki.

This is absolutely silly and untrue. Most wikis are at large wiki farms,
like wikicities and <1-2% of them are sucessful.

MediaWiki is a very good engine, but specialized for enzyklopedias.
If you want to deviate from that type of application, it's advantage
changes to a disadvantage. One could talk hours about details.

Also the uniform surface doesn't help to develop a feeling of
community and/or identity - which *IS* important.

 Maybe I'm just being delusional, but I think using a good wiki package plays a
big role in the success of the wiki .. 

after all, it's all psychological, if it looks nice and organized, then it'll
attract users, if not, then not!
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki


 For those who happen to not know what I'm talking about:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_software
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

The facts are (based on WikiIndex):
    international market shares (1) MediaWiki 22%  (4) ProWiki 3%
    German home market shares (1) ProWiki 36% (2) MediaWiki 26%

These numbers are even more interesting because MediaWiki (and
most of the other 90 engines competing) are GPL while ProWiki
was available only as a paid service. In addition I only cared
for the German language market and did support English projects
only occasionally (out of interest - Wiki4D, or when asked).

===
BUT
===

=================================
ANNOUNCEMENT: PROWIKI OPEN SOURCE
=================================

ProWiki will change it's direction. In March 2000 (planned 15th)
it will go OpenSource and make the software freely available.

Given our experience in supporting individual community needs
combined with additional energy from outside, this will make
ProWiki a major competitor in all markets.

=============================================
ANNOUNCEMENT: D AS PART OF PROWIKI STRATEGIES
=============================================

D is an important option for the future development of ProWiki:

   - short term as an language to program efficient plugins
     extending wiki on the server side (e. g. diagramming => SVG)
     or bulding navigation options like TheBrain (they use Java)

   - long term to translate the current Perl script into D to
     get the efficiency advantage of D as a compiled language
     to get a max-of-millions wiki pages served per year
     (WikiPedia currently used 100+ physical servers, so this
     counts for anyone seriously in wiki business)

Maybe these D applications could act as a kind of door-opener
applications to the larger programming community.

The only problem is timing. I believe in the potential of D
and in the genius of Walter Bright. But the last two time spans
I followed the discussions here and laid my own hands on D,
it simply wasn't ready for production use.

---

Is D ready now? What is the current status of D?

nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:

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?

Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:

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?

Did you read Helmut's post at all?

Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:

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
doubtful and offending. I hope you are young to explain your
insensitiveness and silliness.

Wiki4D was initiated by me because there was an earlier wiki
that had very bad response times and quality and I didn't want
that the reputation of wiki was spoiled in the D community.
I did little more, just add some structure, gave server space.

The content was built since March 2003, during almost 3 years
by its contributors, 22 of which cared to identify:
   <http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FolderContributors>
and who own it in a moral sense.

Walter tolerated Wiki4D but never blessed it. He did AFAIK not
substancially contribute to it. I didn't follow the process in
detail, but it seems that he sometimes took from its notes
on documentation to improve the D website. So he got more from
it than he gave to it. He is not in charge of Wiki4D.

So if you are at all a thinking human, you should primarily
address the Wiki4D community or individual contributors, how
they feel about it. Otherwise you can just create an unnessary
fork or split that divides energies that should be focused.

Helmut

nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:

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).

J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

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

nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:

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.

nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:

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.

J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

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

nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:

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.

Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:

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.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:

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

Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:

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

Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:

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

Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:

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

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:

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

nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:

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.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

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

 
 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.