[Freedombox-discuss] who wants the new look to go online?
On 12-09-30 at 10:18pm, Robert Martinez wrote:
> On 30/09/12 21:01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >On 12-09-30 at 07:24pm, Robert Martinez wrote:
> >>On 28/09/12 22:59, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>>Thanks, but I am not sure what you really invite me to join
> >I dislike your quoting style: above is missing essential parts of the
> >sentence, distorting its meaning.
> Distortion was certainly not my intend. I'm sorry.
> Complete text for clarities sake:
> >Thanks, but I am not sure what you really invite me to join - as it
> >seems you miss my point: Importance of what happens under the hood of
> >the design - e.g. how external sources are tracked and how result is
> >possible to get integrate with Ikiwiki - is exactly what we disagree on
> I offer to adapt to work in whatever way you propose, given that we
> have the same goal here.
> I can't spot much possibility for disagreement, unless you have
> another goal. (In which case I wouldn't understand your
> participation in the matter)
Thanks for quoting properly.
Fine if we really perfectly agree, but please read my comments below...
> @"..tracking of external sources":
> Do you mean using git or *whatever* else - I'll do that if that's your way.
Git is a nice tool for tracking changes to code, and the one I prefer.
But issue here is *external* sources, like (as I pointed out in July)
the inclusion of HTML5 reset. What should change in your code when
HTML5 reset upstream is updated to a newer version? What version is
included now? Did you customize that code somehow? What is its
> @"..how results get integrated":
> Do you mean the framework that is used? - Or the coding language? -
> Or the wiki system or - *whatever* ??? I don't know and I don't
> care. I'll try that if that's your way.
Maybe admins are fine simply doing something like "cp * /var/www".
Maybe admins want to merge with content git.
Maybe admins want to separate as a theme, and agree with Matt that
it is "fairly simple".
Maybe admins worry ahead - like me - about potential breakage at a later
Ikiwiki update involving changes to css, and/or has other reasons for a
more complex setup.
I don't know, and seems you don't either.
> Wrapping that up I just desire:
> "Getting the new look live and online. No matter how. Now."
> - regardless of possible disagreement based on Seans or anybody
> elses approach.
> I just tried to spare us fruitless discussion on that matter (not so
> effectively as it turns out).
Already from your last post in July on this issue did I get the
impression that your approach was to dir it quick'n'dirty (no offense),
which I found (and still find) contradicting to mine. That is the reason
I didn't understand your "invitation to collaborate".
> >>"usable and maintainable design" - sounds good!
> >>I guess what you mean is a more or less a "working wiki theme".
> >No, that is not what I mean. What I mean is what I pointed out in July
> >on this list, as referenced in my previous post.
> >I am happy to elaborate on that if interested.
> The template file you linked to makes no sense to me even after
> removing the parts you suggested to subtract. It is pretty hard for
> me (or rather impossible) to get from this:
> to something that looks like this:
> if you can - tell me what i can do to help you.
> if you cannot i would be glad if you helped me to find a solution
> how i can work on the ikiwiki code and have live feedback on my css
> changes. without that i guess i'm useless, too.
> if you think we should start a complete github project and set up a
> wiki server and do whatever other fancy coding guys may regard
> useful - lead the way! i'll try to follow. just noting i'm not that
> skilled in all that stuff.
> i *tried* getting ikiwiki to run locally to find a way to produce a
> theme somehow - with no luck.
I don't know how you tried and what failed for you, but you might want
to try follow this bootstrap instruction for my own website:
...or this (in danish but commands are language-agnostic) for another
one involving more complex css:
Those are not the simplest Ikiwiki sites. They are what I have found
works for my needs - some not possible with out-of-the-box Ikiwiki, some
possible but too fragile to maintain for my taste.
> >>(The question "if at all" should not arise afaik, since there
> >>already is an ok from James Vasile)
> >Evidently an that ok from James Vasile did not make website admins
> >willing to receive a new visual design, or we wouldn't have this
> i think they are willing. there is just nothing to be received. lets
> change that!
Question is not so much "if" as "how" they are willing.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature