Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Hi Chipp, Hmmm. If it wasn't you, then who? Ah, Pierre Sahores. Hmmm. German and French. You think I'd be able to keep that straight. Don't worry, we all know you are just an american... :-D Sorry. Anyway, Klaus, interested in porting HTMLDOC to Mac / Linux? I am sorry, but i do not have t

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Some of us are already there @;-) Judy On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Dennis Brown wrote: > Scott, > > Thank you for pointing that out to folks. > I am signed up, anyone else joining us? ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please vis

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Yes - but still waiting for Yahoo groups to verify my email address - god I hate Yahoo groups. On 29 Oct 2005, at 19:34, Dennis Brown wrote: Scott, Thank you for pointing that out to folks. I am signed up, anyone else joining us? ___ use-revoluti

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

100% Dennis - except I think you may have hit copy and paste by accident for points 2 and 3 :) Could I propose that we use your post as "rough draft spec"? - and put it up on the wiki of course - which one is another matter :) On 29 Oct 2005, at 19:11, Dennis Brown wrote: I am not interes

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Thanks for pointing that out. Just shows how easy it is to forget a feature when you have not used the tool in many months --I have been using Constellation since it was first made available, and I did not use the IDE for very many months before I switched. Dennis On Oct 29, 2005, at 2:4

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Dennis Brown wrote: The dictionary is immeasurably useful. It is even more useful when integrated into the script editor as done in Constellation. It is. Right-click on a term in the script to see the dictionary entry. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive So

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Scott, Thank you for pointing that out to folks. I am signed up, anyone else joining us? Dennis On Oct 29, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Scott Rossi wrote: This is exactly the kind of discussion that should move to the RevDocs group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RevDocs/ Regards, Scott Rossi Creativ

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Recently, Dennis Brown wrote: > I am not interested in supporting a mish-mash unstructured free-for- > all of information. That is not the point at all. I like much of > the structure of the current embedded Rev documentation. The > dictionary is immeasurably useful. It is even more useful wh

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

I am not interested in supporting a mish-mash unstructured free-for- all of information. That is not the point at all. I like much of the structure of the current embedded Rev documentation. The dictionary is immeasurably useful. It is even more useful when integrated into the script edi

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 29 Oct 2005, at 04:41, Chipp Walters wrote: I couldn't agree with you more. The multiple books available for HyperCard, including Dan Shafer's and Danny Goodman's excellent tomes, were invaluable to me for learning how to work with HyperCard. That is one of the reasons why I'm pushing fo

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Judy. As everyone here knows, you and I don't always see eye to eye on things. OK, we almost never see universe to universe. So what of it? But I thought that a LOT of what you share in this message is, as the Brits say, spot-on. Those who are waiting for electronically delivered info

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

> illustrations mislabeled or misplaced, BUT... My > biggest pet peeve is the indexing. Either... 1. The word I > am trying to find is not there, and any synonym is a dead end > 2. The word is there, but it is a sub-listing so you have to > read the whole index to find it 3. The editor's us

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 10/28/05 7:31 PM, "Judy Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This sort of goes to the heart of why I think that a well-done book, > complete with a good index and a plethora of commented code snippets, > would be invaluable as opposed to any sort of online analog. Actually, only one comment ab

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Judy, I couldn't agree with you more. The multiple books available for HyperCard, including Dan Shafer's and Danny Goodman's excellent tomes, were invaluable to me for learning how to work with HyperCard. That is one of the reasons why I'm pushing for both 'linearity' and 'xml' for whatever w

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

This sort of goes to the heart of why I think that a well-done book, complete with a good index and a plethora of commented code snippets, would be invaluable as opposed to any sort of online analog. The main point is this: people already know how to use books. In all the years since the 1460s i

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Interesting article. A good friend of mine submitted a photoshopped pic of his ex-boss as an 'evil spirit' in wikipedia. Last I looked, it was still there! -Chipp J. Landman Gay wrote: Timothy Miller wrote: Sure, some users would bloat entries. But then, other users would prune them. When

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Yeah, unfortunately, it's the same problem as the web, writ albeit a tad bit smaller. In a take-home exam essay, I had several students providing citations from wikipedias. Even worse, after we had discussed in class Microsoft's stance on their errors in Encarta being less important than Encarta'

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Good question, Tim (even though I"m hurt that you used Danny's book to learn HC and not mine, which was MUCH better. heh heh. JK) I think the answer is yes but this opens a whole can of worms about how to position, package, price and market Rev, whether for the audience you and I see or for

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Hmmm. If it wasn't you, then who? Ah, Pierre Sahores. Hmmm. German and French. You think I'd be able to keep that straight. Sorry. Anyway, Klaus, interested in porting HTMLDOC to Mac / Linux? LOL Chipp Klaus Major wrote: Hi Chipp, Sivakatirswami, ... But that link is very interesting. In

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 28 Oct 2005, at 19:57, MisterX wrote: Compared to a browser, it's also low cost in your desktop! And it's fast, and it never looses its cookies like bugzilla on win32 and firefox??! And the wiki's which I've discovered in the past months, despite making cookies stale requiring you to rem

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Wow! When it's up, I'll be happy to submit material intended to assist rank beginners. I hope this will be helpful to Rev and new users. Cheers, Tim Dear Folks, The energy and enthusiasm of this list is a great resource. We want to do everything we can to encourage it. A lot of good sen

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

You missed the point. MY comment was marked as a rant, not yours! On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Timothy Miller wrote: Sorry you think it was a rant. Oops. Well, yours didn't look like a rant, but mine did, at least to me. How bout we both take a free pass, then. I think it's time for me

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

hi everyone, bad news... posted in a good mood ;) I disagree with most of this tiki thing for rev docs. But not entirely, since revDocs are not net 'capable' or showing any evolution. But please don't chase away the current help system for something uncertain... For one, the rev dox are complete

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

Not a rant, just a practical preference if anyone is in the same or alternate case... X > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Richard Gaskin > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 4:38 PM > To: How to use Revolution > Subj

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

While I remain highly skeptical that a wiki is a good solution to this problem and prefer a commented discussion board model, I will certainly participate in this process once it's going. Dan On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Dennis Brown wrote: Heather, Thank you for your (RunRev's) unequivoc

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Recently, David Bovill wrote: >> Now that RunRev has committed to create and maintain a Rev Docs >> Wiki, I think all our efforts should be funneled into giving them >> our full support for this. I would certainly want them to get all >> the good input available from this list. > > Yes - it wou

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 28 Oct 2005, at 17:31, Dennis Brown wrote: Now that RunRev has committed to create and maintain a Rev Docs Wiki, I think all our efforts should be funneled into giving them our full support for this. I would certainly want them to get all the good input available from this list. Yes -

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

All, Now that RunRev has committed to create and maintain a Rev Docs Wiki, I think all our efforts should be funneled into giving them our full support for this. I would certainly want them to get all the good input available from this list. A bad wiki is worse than no wiki at all. Wit

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 28 Oct 2005, at 17:21, Dennis Brown wrote: Heather, Thank you for your (RunRev's) unequivocal endorsement of this long time desire from this list. I believe it is in RunRev's best interest to take the leadership role and apparently you agree. Please be sure to solicit input INTERACTI

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Heather, Thank you for your (RunRev's) unequivocal endorsement of this long time desire from this list. I believe it is in RunRev's best interest to take the leadership role and apparently you agree. Please be sure to solicit input INTERACTIVELY with the "interested parties" during the

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Dear Folks, The energy and enthusiasm of this list is a great resource. We want to do everything we can to encourage it. A lot of good sense has been spoken regarding how to set up and manage a revdocs wiki successfully. With a view to facilitating the effort, whilst still retaining control

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Dennis Brown wrote: > On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >> There's been a tremendous amount of discussion about wikis here over >> the last 48 hours. Clearly a lot of good energy that can be put to >> productive use for the benefit of all. >> >> Given the great many details

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Richard, I am game for this. I just signed up for the RevDocs list. Let's just make sure that this list gets the occasional post about the progress so others know there is a place to discuss it. Dennis On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: There's been a tremendous amount

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

There's been a tremendous amount of discussion about wikis here over the last 48 hours. Clearly a lot of good energy that can be put to productive use for the benefit of all. Given the great many details needed to be worked out to move this forward, much much more discussion will be needed.

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

I really would recommend you have some fun and go and delete a wikipedia entry. I did this a couple of years ago - and have done it once or twice more as a "demo". usually corrected within 2 minutes - sometimes as much as 5 minutes - really quite amazing! On 28 Oct 2005, at 13:14, Stephen B

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

you can also enforce that users log in before editing, you can restrict the rights to comments, arcticles, changes etc... And you can also setup groups which have special rights to do this or that... But from experience, leaving anyone to modify anything is not a good idea - even comments...

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 28 Oct 2005, at 07:58, J. Landman Gay wrote: Just to play devil's advocate: Yes - good article - one of the very rare anti-wikipedia articles. Goes nowhere to say why or to suggest solutions though. This is a side poi

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

And I've heard in the case of BIG mistakes, a good Wiki can be 'rolled-back' easily by the admin and the offender unsubscribed if there's mischief. Timothy Miller wrote: Sure, some users would bloat entries. But then, other users would prune them. When I look at the wikipedia, the entries I

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 28 Oct 2005, at 05:48, Chipp Walters wrote: Some of these are free, others cost. But the beauty in XML is that it doesn't 'lock' the content inside a display presentation format. I assume wiki's can do the same thing. Yes - and this solves the flexible pdf export side of things much be

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 28 Oct 2005, at 02:53, Dan Shafer wrote: Several years ago, I headed up a project which involved an extensive documentation effort and this same issue was raised. I like the way we solved it. Furthermore, I happen to have access to the tool and a server where it could be deployed and wou

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Good question: On 28 Oct 2005, at 01:26, Chipp Walters wrote: Question: How would one manage 'wiki-bloat' where different people post so much commentary about a function or handler or feature, that it becomes impossible to navigate through? Would special 'editors' need be appointed? If a

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Well said! On 28 Oct 2005, at 01:12, Timothy Miller wrote: I have mixed feelings about what I'm about to say. I expect that the new docs will be a big improvement. They might be excellent. Rev deserves a lot of credit for efforts to enhance the docs. I don't want to see that deprecated. I

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 27 Oct 2005, at 21:02, Chipp Walters wrote: Perhaps I don't know enough about wiki's, but it would sure be nice if they could organize data in a form which could be printed in a real-book format (and had an 'export to PDF' button which did just that, including TOC and index). While th

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Hi Chipp, Sivakatirswami, ... But that link is very interesting. In fact I've got a complete GUI written around the openSource version of HTMLDOC. Currently it only works on Windows, but I seem to remember handing off the Mac/Linux port to Klaus? To Mr. Major? No, not that i could remem

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Timothy Miller wrote: Sure, some users would bloat entries. But then, other users would prune them. When I look at the wikipedia, the entries I see are remarkably concise. Just to play devil's advocate: -- Jacqueline Land

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

You missed the point. MY comment was marked as a rant, not yours! On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Timothy Miller wrote: Sorry you think it was a rant. ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, "Revol

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

I don't know, Dennis. Frankly, I haven't read the thread in its entirety. So my proposal is made in a semi-vacuum. If there are features people see as crucial that seem not to be envisioned by what I propose, I'd be happy to look into them individually. On Oct 27, 2005, at 7:11 PM, Dennis B

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Chipp Walters > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:48 AM > To: How to use Revolution > Subject: Re: Revdocs on a wiki > > Timothy Miller wrote: > > > > The engineering team must certainly begi

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Timothy Miller wrote: The engineering team must certainly begin the documentation process. If it's a simple application, then maybe the docs written by the engineers are as good as they can be. But if it's a very complex application, or development tool, or whatever, then the documentation

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Hi Dan, Sorry you think it was a rant. I guess it might have been. It's embarrassing to rant, when that wasn't your intention. <:-| --snip-- I wonder why it is that everyone thinks s/he can write better documentation than the professionals Good comment, but it's not quite what I inten

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

I wonder if the process of working out the details of this project might be well served on a dedicated list, perhaps the RevDocs list: -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation __ Rev tools and m

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Dan, Thank you for joining this discussion with this worth while proposal. Having read the list of desired features on this thread, which features do you think would have to be compromised with the solution you are proposing? Dennis On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: Several

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

I really believe the functionality desired would not be served by Web Notes as currently conceived --even if thy did work. To capture much of the wisdom that is shared on this list requires the ability to add new topics and links. Web Notes is just a place to make a coment about an existi

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

> Several years ago, I headed up a project which involved an extensive > documentation effort and this same issue was raised. I like the way > we solved it. Furthermore, I happen to have access to the tool and a > server where it could be deployed and would make both freely > available if: (a) at l

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Tim. I've kept my counsel as this thread unwound, determined not to become embroiled in yet another discussion about the Rev docs, which remain among the best of any software development tool I've seen. But your post dragged me out of the bushes. While I agree with much of what you sa

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

well, the search function helps on wikis: enter: "PDF" But PMwiki.org has things going for that a Rev wiki would not #1 Professor Patrick Michaud (PM) is incredibly dedicated to PMwiki which is a "product" albeit open source. In it's own right, the issue of site maintenance are handled imme

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Sivakatirswami, H. http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/PublishPDF Had a heck of a time trying to find that link! I think this may be a problems with wiki's in general..navigating to want you want. There is no 'forced' organization and as such no one ever seems to know where everything is.

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

I have mixed feelings about what I'm about to say. I expect that the new docs will be a big improvement. They might be excellent. Rev deserves a lot of credit for efforts to enhance the docs. I don't want to see that deprecated. I suspect Rev cares about their users more than most technology co

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

www.pmwiki.org offers some solutions to most of these problems...check it out the cookbook recipes for PDF export of the wiki pages. On Oct 27, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Chipp Walters wrote: Perhaps I don't know enough about wiki's, but it would sure be nice if they could organize data in a for

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Heather, when you do get round to this... here is a super package... advantage: no back end dbase required, all flat files, *very* well supported and easy to admin. www.pmwiki.org Sivakatirswami On Oct 27, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Heather Nagey wrote: Dear list members, Regarding the recent d

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Revdocs on a wiki On Oct 27, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Lynch, Jonathan wrote: > But with a wiki, we can do more than we can with web notes. We can add > our own sections, our own how-to articles, our own function scripts > with > an explanation on h

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On Oct 27, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Lynch, Jonathan wrote: But with a wiki, we can do more than we can with web notes. We can add our own sections, our own how-to articles, our own function scripts with an explanation on how to use it, etc... Maybe RunRev could make it so that the wiki IS the inte

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:45 PM To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Revdocs on a wiki Troy Rollins wrote: > > If this would be the case, then it would > be better to simply fix whatever is wrong with the web docs system that > is already built into Rev and start seriously supporti

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Troy, You are right about this. I keep thinking in the back of my mind that the embedded docs system can be upgraded to interact with a wiki by Rev or another developer, because I have seen examples of this in Constellation and others also. If RunRev gets behind this effort, then a hybri

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Of course, the downside to that is most potential contributors will consider it a DocZilla operation rather than a collaboration/sharing. Am I missing the point? Jim Ault Las Vegas On 10/27/05 12:44 PM, "Chipp Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Troy Rollins wrote: >> >> If this would be t

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Troy Rollins wrote: If this would be the case, then it would be better to simply fix whatever is wrong with the web docs system that is already built into Rev and start seriously supporting that with all this community energy. Troy, I agree. ___

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On Oct 27, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: By the same token, having a link to the wiki from the built-in docs, would obviate the need to duplicate the same info in the wiki. Good point, but this assumes that the only mechanism for browsing the wiki is the internal docs, doesn't it? In

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

, October 27, 2005 2:51 PM To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Revdocs on a wiki On Oct 27, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Mark Swindell wrote: > Using the existing docs as a starting point would be optimal, in my > view. Exactly, otherwise there will be a wiki with many blank or placeholder pages

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

By the same token, having a link to the wiki from the built-in docs, would obviate the need to duplicate the same info in the wiki. Only the additional information need be in the wiki. However, if the internal docs could download a corrected definition from the wiki, then there is a good r

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Perhaps I don't know enough about wiki's, but it would sure be nice if they could organize data in a form which could be printed in a real-book format (and had an 'export to PDF' button which did just that, including TOC and index). While they do provide a nice 'random-access' interface (searc

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On Oct 27, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Mark Swindell wrote: Using the existing docs as a starting point would be optimal, in my view. Exactly, otherwise there will be a wiki with many blank or placeholder pages which cannot completely support the user's inquiries - which ultimately results in a tool

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Using the existing docs as a starting point would be optimal, in my view. From there things could branch out. Mark On Oct 27, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Dennis Brown wrote: Duplicating the existing docs was just a good anchor point for the corrections and expansions. __

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Another possibility is that we don't try to duplicate the existing docs which we all have available anyway. Duplicating the existing docs was just a good anchor point for the corrections and expansions. However, the real value is in capturing the contributions to this list in a way that m

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

Heather, Your post is not clear to me on a couple of points: On Oct 27, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Heather Nagey wrote: Dear list members, Regarding the recent debate about extracting the current revdocs and putting them on a public wiki. We have discussed this here, and we feel that at this mome

Re: Revdocs on a wiki

On 27 Oct 2005, at 18:09, Lynch, Jonathan wrote: One possibility is that if we create a revdoc wiki with the new documentation, then when RunRev is ready to create their own wiki, the user-created wiki could be ported to RunRev for your use. Sounds good to me. Rev Docs are fine and available l

RE: Revdocs on a wiki

Hi Heather... How long before the new documentation is available? How long before a RunRev sponsored revdoc wiki would be available? If we get impatient, and want to create our own, is that permitted? One possibility is that if we create a revdoc wiki with the new documentation, then when RunR