Hal,
I'm not suggesting that a wiki is a way to create a rigid standard. I'm
saying that it's the best way to document (and perhaps normalize) the
de facto standards that are already abundant. There will most certainly
be conflicting opinions within FuseWiki, and that is a good thing. We
want to make sure all the pros and cons of each "best practice" are
documented. It doesn't matter who says what. Statements will be backed
up not by a name like Hal Helms, but by well reasoned explanations that
are subject to scrutiny on the same page.
If you want to go ahead and create FB 3.0 / XFB 1.0, more power to ya!
Just be sure to add a link to it on the FuseWiki so I don't have to
search all over the web to find it. In fact, if you really want to
grab one or two people and write a standard, I think FuseWiki would
be a great reference for you to use!
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 1:47 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: RTFFW (was: RIGID STANDARDISATION...)
>
>
> ***************************** 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
