***************************** Team Allaire *****************************
Well written post, Brian. The problem with using Wiki for standardizing
something is that standards mean something only when the standard body is
known and accepted. But Wiki posits the idea that "all are created equal".
Now that's a wonderful, enobling idea applied to the political arena (or so
I think) but it sucks when trying to create something *coherent*.
For an example, Steve Nelson and I discussed for 8 months the idea of nested
fuseboxes. Finally, I am much happy to say, Steve saw the light. Now, in the
context of an email list, it's perfectly acceptable and expected that people
will be discussing, arguing, etc. But FuseWiki purports to be a reference.
Based on whose opinion/interpretation/authorization?
Do I post something on FuseWiki that says this is how circuits should work.
Then Steve comes along with, "No, it's not" and then someone else says "This
is how I think we should nest circuits." In what sense is that a standard or
a reference? It only appears that way now because people aren't nearly as
active on FuseWiki as they are on this email list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Shearer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:59 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: RTFFW (was: RIGID STANDARDISATION...)
>Yeah, Fusewiki is cool, but the interface takes me back to 1996.
>Maybe we could add some rainbow horizontal rules for good measure.
You read thousands of text-based emails with titles like "RE: RTFFW (was:
RIGID STANDARDISATION... which was: Lee Borkman smells like Hal Helms )" and
your complaining about the Wiki interface?
>... but It sure looks like this could turn
>into spaghetti really fast.
Hal Helms makes a comment about "deep sixing the whole attributes thing" and
200 messages later we are singing songs about the Spanish Inquisition and
offending our Jewish FuseBretheren. And you think that Wiki can turn into
spaghetti really fast?
The beauty of a Wiki is that if YOU think it looks like spaghetti, YOU can
go in a clean it up. If everyone took a few minutes every week to contribute
a few lines to the FuseWiki we could have up-to-date documentation on most
everything that comes up in this list. How many times do we have to explain
to a newbie what XFB is? How often do we stray from the original topic (look
at the header of this message)? What if this thread were 4 pages in a Wiki
that any one could go back to for reference instead of 50 email messages
which some poor soul will find in the archives and have to read them all
just to figure out what we were talking about?
Please take a look at the following:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorksNot
Brian Shearer
Custom Data Systems, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Voldengen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 8:05 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: RTFFW (was: RIGID STANDARDISATION...)
Yeah, Fusewiki is cool, but the interface takes me back to 1996.
Maybe we could add some rainbow horizontal rules for good measure.
I see the value in it, but It sure looks like this could turn
into spaghetti really fast. And perhaps some people are
spoiled by today's more usable and attractive interfaces.
> I'm surprised at the apparent lack of interest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
