On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:21:22AM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote: > Thanks Adam for your feedback.
That's ok, anything I can do to help. > I will make a couple responses, then should we take this discussion off line - > as this list is more for development and all > the technical issues that still confront us?? I don't know, I think it's important to have user input on this. > > should there be a reference to ed when talking about it? > > Yes. Missed that one. Done. > > > The philosophy section is largely unsourced. > > Yes that was and is one of my concerns. > But it seems (to me) to important to omit. > It is the very reason for writing edbrowse in the first place. > It has to start somewhere, and I don't see ACM or I triple E publishing > a paper on it, so not sure how to get the ball rolling. > Worst case I suppose they could contest that particular section. Yeah, I see what you mean, I wonder if it could be condensed with a reference to the relevant web page? > > describing the direction that accessibility should take. > > Well I tried hard not to say where it *should* go, only pointing out > that there are different approaches. > Their writing guidelines say that's ok. > It's all right to say there are approaches A and B out there, > and even quote some people who support A and some people who support B, > as long as you quote both sides. > Like the Broken Windows theory of policing, > which I read about, where they quote people who like it and people who don't, > and that's ok; though I didn't want to work that hard, > or write that much, and I still don't want to, > but I think it would help to say approaches A and B exist, > because right now only about 100 people in the world know about approach B. Perhaps, but I wonder if this article is the right place to put it. > > > Also, probably remove the link to Jupiter as it's very obscure. > > I initially wanted to put it in, as opposed to speakup and the others > that you mention, because it uniquely isn't a screen reader. > It captures and reads a linear log of output, consistent with linear programs. > In that sense it is part of approach B. > But if you didn't get that subtle distinction then I'm not making the point > well enough, and it's too obscure and too tangential, > and you're right I just shouldn't go there. > This is about the editor browser, not various kinds of adapters. > So I have removed that link. Ok. > > you probably want to focus more on the technical and feature aspects > > I hadn't thought of this. > A section called == Features == > But as I write it in my mind, a b command to browse, a g command to go > to a hyperlink, etc, I wonder if it wouldn't be incomprehensible, > unless you were fluent in ed, which damn few people are. > I'll have to think about that one. I was more thinking in terms of: Perl compatible regular expressions http, https etc support for web browsing email support (not sure exactly what as I personally don't use this) database support (again not sure on the details) Multi-buffer support Configuration file with macro language Scriptability via popen and friends Possible examples for the above two etc > > > and less on user opinions > > Again, their writing guidelines say it is fine to quote peoples reactions > to a theory or idea or product, > they say it is even helpful to the reader, > as long as you are somewhat even handed. > And I do find these third party quotes in a lot of their articles. > John says String Theory does indeed explain the fabrik of the universe, > but Tim says it is a silly mathematical exercise. Ok, I didn't know that was the case. Cheers, Adam. _______________________________________________ Edbrowse-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
