On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> I often program in an 'off line' manner, and I'd find on-line docs to be way
> too slow. I don't mind building the docs once a day.
Google Gears was a framework to build these sort of things, namely
provide locally cached version of
Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/25/2010 01:41 PM:
Another possibly useful option is to use the local docs and fall back on the
remote if they're not installed. This might be a better default -- allowing
people to install the local copy and forget about the on-line thing.
We don't have to forget
20 minutes ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> [...]
> 3. And even if you get that resolved, you still have the issue that
>Neil raised. That's why I suggested a preference for:
>* Using the remote docs.racket-lang.org
>* Using a local copy if it's installed
>* Using the remote docs if they
I agree with ELi here.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour ago, Everett Morse wrote:
>> Comments on the below discussion and possible implementation ideas.
>>
>> User-contributed comments should be annotations to the
>> documentation. They could then be fetched using JS
An hour ago, Everett Morse wrote:
> Comments on the below discussion and possible implementation ideas.
>
> User-contributed comments should be annotations to the
> documentation. They could then be fetched using JS (Ajax) from the
> local copy when an internet connection is available,
You mean
There is a privacy/security problem to address: as described, this is
phoning home to the mothership, and effectively tracking each user's
browsing and searching behavior within the manuals, page-by-page, even
though they are using local copies.
The tracking situation on the public Web is craz
Comments on the below discussion and possible implementation ideas.
User-contributed comments should be annotations to the documentation. They
could then be fetched using JS (Ajax) from the local copy when an internet
connection is available, and if there is no internet connection the annotatio
Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/22/2010 04:30 PM:
On Sep 22, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
I think that you can make online docs sufficiently immediate value-added that
people are drawn to use those.
I don't believe that this will ever be effective enough. We have a large
number of newcomers (becau
Don't talk it to death with long emails. Help people to get this started. --
Matthias
On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Sep 22, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>> Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/22/2010 01:18 AM:
>>> The punchline is that your desire to use a local copy is in direct
>>> con
On Sep 22, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/22/2010 01:18 AM:
> > The punchline is that your desire to use a local copy is in direct
> > contradiction with the desire to get community involvement in
> > improving the docs. No matter what facility is available for the
> > community to
And also, the wiki software kinda blew in many ways.
One of the biggest ways was a small thing with, I think, big
implications: the software would by default add an attribution line for
each edit, encouraging people to view the page as a dumbed-down Web
commenting forum to append a comment to,
Eli Barzilay wrote at 09/22/2010 01:18 AM:
The punchline is that your desire to use a local copy is in direct
contradiction with the desire to get community involvement in improving the
docs. No matter what facility is available for the community to discuss and
supplement the docs -- if you ha
On Sep 21, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > And a side-comment -- having an on-line documentation is probably
> > going to make lots of people who follow the repository happy,
> > since compiling it is where the biggest chunk of time is spent.
>
>
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> And a side-comment -- having an on-line documentation is probably
> going to make lots of people who follow the repository happy, since
> compiling it is where the biggest chunk of time is spent.
No, no. See my comment. The improvements to th
On Sep 21, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> [... lots of stuff that he'll be happy if even two people read ...]
> [as usual.]
The only concrete suggestion that I see here is the following. How
practical it is is debatable. I'll try to make this short enough to
be more effective than the previous post.
* D
[Sorry, I planned on some short and concrete description, but ended
writing a blog-post-like piece of text... FWIW, I would love it if
someone takes this on seriously.]
On Sep 21, Everett Morse wrote:
> I had some thoughts about Racket's documentation compared to PHP's
> last night, so this morn
Jay McCarthy wrote:
What do you think is missing from these tutorials:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/index.html
http://docs.racket-lang.org/continue/index.html
http://docs.racket-lang.org/more/index.html
In particular, Quick tries to present the essence of the languages.
Maybe the problem
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Everett Morse wrote:
> I had some thoughts about Racket's documentation compared to PHP's last
> night, so this morning I wrote up a blog post about it.
>
> Here is the link:
> http://www.neptic.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-design-documentation/
>
> Below, for your conv
Everett, thanks for your comments. I think they are right on:
On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Everett Morse wrote:
> I’m sure if you understood Racket well it would all make sense, but it does
> not help a beginner get better
>
You may not believe this, but even someone who has programmed in R
I had some thoughts about Racket's documentation compared to PHP's last
night, so this morning I wrote up a blog post about it.
Here is the link:
http://www.neptic.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-design-documentation/
Below, for your convenience, is the complete text copy-pasted in.
Thanks,
-Everett
20 matches
Mail list logo
