I think I've done my side of the argument a disservice by focusing specifically on HTML as the enemy. There are all sorts of functions we could apply to the source code which would have exact inverses -- that is, you'd be able to edit the source in the Pretty Version and then translate it back losslessly into the current, Ugly Version.
If the plain-text syntax were tweaked to be more readable -- for example, by removing <p> tags and replacing them with linebreaks, by removing redundant title attributes in <a> tags, by rendering literal < and > characters inside <pre> instead of < and >, etc. -- then that would be a big step in the right direction. I have responses to roc's post below, but maybe we should just focus on the productive business above. :) > I understand that you have a strong preference, but > if editing MDN would help advance your work, refusing to do so because you > don't like the WYSIWYG editor just seems obdurate. I have lots of strong > preferences that I subjugate every day for the sake of getting work done, > and I'm sure you do too. If I were choosing not to edit MDN and then doing nothing with the time saved, I'd agree with your characterization. But my time is a zero-sum game. I'd similarly agree with you if the tradeoff was between my writing the docs and the docs not getting done. But that's not the case either. It'd be less work overall for the dev-docs team if I documented some of my features myself, and we'd likely end up with higher-quality docs if more developers were willing to revise the documentation for features the dev-docs team wrote. So I think there would be a benefit to everyone if I and others were made more comfortable editing in MDN. But when I feel like my ergonomics are not a priority for the MDN team, I'm likely to be happier and more productive doing other work. Maybe that's obdurate, but it's certainly not done out of malice. But even if I were willing and able to push these biases aside myself -- and I don't claim to be such a big person -- I guess I was speaking about myself in synecdoche. It seems to me that there is a large class of potential MDN editors who feel the same way. Not all of them get paid to work for Mozilla, so not all of them can be expected to suck it up. Now, whether such a group actually does exist, and how large it might be, is not clear. But I think we should at least not ignore what data we do have: Sheppy says this topic keeps coming up, that he gets flamed every N months about this. Every time it comes up, there is no lack of developers willing to argue against the current state of affairs. So how many others are we not counting? > Here you seem to be making an argument that those of us who edit plain-text > most of the time (program source code and HTML testcases, I assume) must > necessarily prefer to use plain-text for all forms of communication. This > argument seems invalid. I was trying to make a probabilistic, rather than an absolute, argument: A large fraction of this group of people, I would argue, prefers editing technical documents, be it code, testcases, bug reports, in plain text, instead of in a rich-text editor. As evidence for this, I offer: * that the vast majority of us choose to write plain-text e-mail, * that no major wiki (that I'm aware of) lacks good plain-text editing support, and indeed plain-text editing is the primary if not exclusive means of editing the majority of wikis I've used, and * that popular platforms for developers such as StackOverflow and Github use a language designed for plain-text readability such as markdown or an extremely limited subset of HTML. Now, whether this is due to some deep characteristic of plain text or due to limitations of existing GUIs, I don't know. There was some discussion on IRC that perhaps we don't like rich-text editors because it's hard to get the formatting Just Right, and as programmers, we're perfectionists. > I'm happy to use a WYSIWYG editor and ignore the plain-text. So would you argue that we should remove the plain-text editor altogether? I don't mean this as a trap, but rather: Either you think that peoples' preference for the plain-text entry mode is legitimate, in which case I hope we'd agree it should be good, or you think that the preference for plain-text entry is not legitimate (perhaps it's based on prejudice and not fact, for example), in which case, why bother? -Justin On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Justin Lebar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Now, maybe your argument would be that everyone else should use the >> rich text editor like you do, because it's an obviously-superior >> experience. In that case, I'd suggest you just remove the ability to >> edit the source directly, since there's no point in offering a >> second-rate editing experience. But I think that would belie a >> fundamental misunderstanding of your audience. It's the Mozilla >> /Developer/ Network. Most of us produce machine-parsed text of some >> form, by hand, in a plain-text editor, many hours a day. Plain text >> is our chosen method of technical communication. > > > Here you seem to be making an argument that those of us who edit plain-text > most of the time (program source code and HTML testcases, I assume) must > necessarily prefer to use plain-text for all forms of communication. This > argument seems invalid. > >> >> It's hard for us to >> get the rich-text editor to do what we want, and anyway, doing so >> requires using the mouse (or leaning new keyboard shortcuts, if the >> MDN rich-text editor has those?). We're HTML programmers who would be >> ashamed to write such ugly HTML and can't stand reading it. > > > I'm not sure who "we" refers to here, but I assume it's the afore-mentioned > group of plain-text editors, including me. So I refute your statement by > example: I don't care whether my MDN HTML is ugly. Basically, there are > several good reasons to prefer plain-text for program source code and HTML > testcases, but none of them apply to MDN, so I'm happy to use a WYSIWYG > editor and ignore the plain-text. > >> I understand that this seems like a bikeshed. I'm a grumpy programmer >> with an opinion. But I don't think this is a trivial issue. After >> the stability issues, which perhaps are now fixed, the HTML ugliness >> is the primary reason I avoid MDN at all costs. It sounds like I'm >> not alone. > > > I don't understand this. I understand that you have a strong preference, but > if editing MDN would help advance your work, refusing to do so because you > don't like the WYSIWYG editor just seems obdurate. I have lots of strong > preferences that I subjugate every day for the sake of getting work done, > and I'm sure you do too. > > Rob > -- > “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ > But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that > you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those who love > you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? > And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?" > [Matthew 5:43-47] > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
