On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:07 PM, João Miguel Pais wrote: >> 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".
The idea is that each language site should be completely autonomous. It's probably a good idea to keep the infobox in sync, but I do not think it should be mandatory in anyway. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
