Re: Improvements of the website
MJ Ray schrieb:
> Bastian Venthur <email@example.com> wrote: [...]
>> * I don't believe we should favor XML(-ish stuff) above simplified
>> markup when the target audience are humans. XML is good for many things
>> but definitely not for being edited by the casual user. [...]
> We have good tools for editing XML, which are much better than
> the tools we have for editing non-TextFormattingRules wiki texts.
The point is: All you need to edit wiki syntax effectively is a plain
text field (and optionally an inline spell checker). Really, wiki syntax
is that easy. In contrast to XML where you suddenly need "good tools" in
order to edit effectively.
>> Please think of the translators: [...]
> Erm, I am a translator, although I've not translated much of
> www.debian.org. It's a two minute job to edit a page on the site:
> find source file, update it, edit it, check it in. This can all be
> done quite easily from the editor's menus. CVS is so common that many
> editors can work with it well.
Yes, common for you, me and other techies. But you know, not everyone is
BTW it takes definitely more than "two minutes" if you first have to
find out what to do, what to check out and which page to edit. In
contrast to a wiki, where you can edit instantly.
>> * Moving even more towards a programming style environment by
>> suggesting gettext for translations, seems very inappropriate and would
>> raise the barrier for non coders even more. Translating text shouldn't
>> be so complicated, if it can be made as easy as editing a wiki or CMS.
> Translators also have good tools for handling gettext. What's more,
> if we used gettext for more of the site, we could use nice web
> translation frontends more easily. I'm not sure it's worthwhile, but
> it seems a better option than the wiki.
If you mean with "Nice web translation frontents": "someone can enter
translated text into a webfrontend", than it sounds pretty much like
"wiki" for me.
>> * I don't understand what you mean with "undocumented browser
>> dependencies". Never had a problem with any wiki and the different
>> graphical browsers out there. I assume you mean text based browsers?
> Not unless Iceweasel is suddenly a text-based browser. My
> configuration is a bit different to defaults, for various reasons, but
Hmm, ok. "a bit different to defaults" (what ever this means) and
suddenly you're not able to edit a wiki anymore? I think we shouldn't
take your setup as the reference for the quality of a wiki. Especially
This reminds me BTW of an IRC conversation a few hours ago where someone
(not you) was basically arguing against a fancy redesign of our homepage
and it turned out that he mainly uses a textbased browser ;)
> if the wiki documented its requirements, I expect I could set
> something up quite quickly. Instead, AFAIK, I either spend time
> trial-and-erroring it, rummaging in its sources, switch computer or
> just ignore wiki.d.o as broken until it's fixed. What's easiest?
Again, your setup is probably broken. If you broke it on purpose and
*really* wonder why wiki.d.o does not work anymore for you, I'm sorry.
But I have a simple trick for you: just create another account with a
default iceweasel setup. Should work out of the box and takes max 1
minute to setup.
> Ignore wins so far. Thank $DEITY we have a decent access route for
Hmm your arguments weren't very convincing for me, but I guess that's
pretty much the same you're thinking about mine.
> editing the main web site instead of a nasty web form.
Maybe we have some kind of generation gap here, some people prefer to
work with their well known all-purpose tools while others are already
comfortable to use e.g. a browser to check their mail or edit a wiki.
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org