> Ultimately, the structure of the infobox is up to the language head. > Which ones are included are up to the heads of each language, like > wikipedia. > > I think we should not add fields until we have data for them, for > example, there isn't any data for "cpu use index". > > I think "helppatch name" should only be used on the objects that don't > use the standard naming scheme (i.e. *-help.pd). > > Also, the "messages" section might be redundant. It might make more > sense to including the messages in the "inlets" section, since > occasionally, different inlets accept different messages. (Most of the > time, messages with selectors are sent to the first inlet).
I also think that it should be the same structure in all languages. I don't see much point in each language going astray depending on the mood/resources of its participants - for that there's the puredatainfo already. But while checking the infobox template, I saw that those extra fields were already programmed, that's why I asked if they should be added to the template. In that case, I would suggest to remove those fields from the infobox structure for now - new fields can be added at any time, after they've been "approved". _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
