> What about links to everything2.com? It works
> quite well for /., and I use it quite often when
> I need to know what something is. It is kind of
> inkeeping with the ethos of mozilla too. Afterall,
> why duplicate someone elses work?
Just a few little reasons (no sarcasm, they are little
reasons):
Bad things,
:: E2 isn't really about one definition of something
(a bad thing when you're trying to be a dictionary).
:: E2 doesn't have a light-weight interface to the
database. I suggested this about eleven months ago -
to make E2 an API. Thus no way to avoid E2's somewhat
bloated HTML template.
:: Disallows certain HTML tags and CSS that are useful
and therefore also...
:: Doesn't allow external links. Instead posters work
around this by typing the url and you cut/paste it (or
whatever).
Good things,
:: Already written definitions.
:: Already written system.
:: Quite fast since the upgrade.
I think E2 has a different purpose to a straight
definitions list - with its' newnodes, chatterbox,
current user list, it's a lovely community.
Definitions probably won't be a problem. There will be
public submissions in a similar way to E2. However,
they will be encouraged to improve the definition
rather than to provide another.
When someone goes to a node they will get the approved
definition (or none if it's not there). I think it's
best to allow reading of unapproved definitions on a
seperate page (with an obligatory warning/disclaimer)
so we don't actually hide possible information from
people - I think this is more important than possible
misuse (there will be filters to stop Tr0LLish
redirects).
If someone does know of an content only definitions
list - some kind of API or XML protocol - do tell
chums. I'm only too happy to use a pre-rolled system
if it fits :)
Ta-ta!
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://au.classifieds.yahoo.com/au/car/ - Yahoo! Cars
- Buy, sell or finance a car..
