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
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
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?
___
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 visit
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
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
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 when
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 28 Oct 2005, at 07:58, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
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
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...
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
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
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
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 needed to be
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
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 of content to monitor
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
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.
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
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 would be
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 of content to monitor
for quality and retain copyright, we propose to set
...
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
Subject: 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
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
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 of content to monitor for
quality and retain copyright, we propose to set up a runrev revdocs
wiki. This may take us a little time to get off
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
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
Good question, Tim (even though Im 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
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
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
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
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
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 about
illustrations mislabeled or misplaced, BUT... peeve 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
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
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 moment in time such effort would be largely wasted, as the
docs are under active review right now. However at a later
@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Revdocs on a wiki
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 moment in time such effort would be largely wasted, as the
docs are under active review
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
, 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 which cannot
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?
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.
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 the case,
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
: 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 supporting that with all
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
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 how to use it, etc...
Maybe RunRev
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 least
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
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:
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:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RevDocs/
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
__
Rev tools and
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
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
: [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 begin the documentation
process.
If it's a simple
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
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,
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:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
--
Jacqueline
77 matches
Mail list logo
