Qbasicnews.com
May 27, 2018, 04:38:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Back to Qbasicnews.com | QB Online Help | FAQ | Chat | All Basic Code | QB Knowledge Base
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: Which Style should be used?  (Voting closed: May 20, 2005, 02:51:24 PM)
Sample Style - 4 (80%)
As originally posted. - 1 (20%)
Total Voters: 4

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Style  (Read 9194 times)
urger
Wandering Guru
***
Posts: 337



« on: May 20, 2005, 02:51:24 PM »

There is much confusion on the style to follow in the individual articles, the style as originally posted and the style set forth in the SampleStyle page.  Please vote to select the style to use.
Logged

his sig left intentionally blank
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2005, 03:03:36 PM »

im really not sure whats the style youre talking about that was originally posted. all i have to ask is... am i doing everything ok? if not please let me know now b4 i get any farther...
Logged
urger
Wandering Guru
***
Posts: 337



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2005, 03:07:14 PM »

I mean the format the pages are in, as they were when SysOp posted them, before any other people edited them, thier sections, asthetic, etc.
As to whether your doing it right or not, Thats what this poll will determine  Smiley
Logged

his sig left intentionally blank
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2005, 03:12:17 PM »

Okay, then ill take a break lol...
Logged
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2005, 05:38:49 PM »

Keep the one used in ABS, the wiki is just a way to get more people contributing, it won't be the end format, so it must be simple to convert later.

Admins can't do much, only change the page access, any deletion and renaming has to be done using direct DB access..
Logged

keeling
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 149



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2005, 05:40:05 PM »

This means that if we all agree to change styles all of the work you've done today Cha0s will have to be reformated (which it looks like it might be).

The 'new' format is at http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=stylesample as opposed to using the FBtags (a la .http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=KeyPgAbs).
Logged
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2005, 05:44:56 PM »

FBtags must be used, wiki is just an intermediate format as nobody wanted to work using XML (i don't disagree with them, writing docs is boring, following a strict formatting is much worse).

Quoting myself:

Quote
I'm against complex formatting, it will make the pages hard to convert to anything else and hard to maintain and edit, lets use the simple formatting, as in #DEFINE.

This Wiki can't return the outer text of tags, so there wouldn't be a way to use the {{fbdoc}} actions.
[/quote]
Logged

keeling
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 149



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2005, 05:53:28 PM »

It seems most people like the sample style. But if we must use the FBTags, then I'm ok with that. But this does raise one question.

Why?

Excuse me for perhaps being naive, but won't it be just as easy to parse the format of the sample style sheet as it would be the tags? This is what I haven't got yet with any of the format arguments. So long as the formatting tools are consistent, we can parse it to any new format we want.

It seems I'm missing something, but I have written parsers for some nasty, human screwed up data and it wasn't that bad. And here we are talking about a bunch of programmers. I would imagine that so long as the format was well stated we could follow it, FBTags or otherwise.

I'm just a bit confused.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2005, 06:23:02 PM »

Yeah, to be honest I really don't get all of this nonsense (sorry) either. As long as it's helping someone to learn the language, what's the harm..? Like keeling said, we're not a bunch of no0bs that can't handle "exceptions". we're programmers. we could write a prser to do anything with any format. I think looking at FB is enough to see that ANYTHING is possible. So, seriously, What is the big deal..?
Logged
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2005, 06:38:24 PM »

I don't see the reason why the aesthetics of the pages is being discussed.

That wiki is an intermediary format, not the final one(s), it is being used because it is simpler to edit than say XML or LaTex. The FBDOC tags were kept simple so people wouldn't complain and forget about ending tags and so on, what would break the parsing later.

fb.net has only 100mb of TOTAL disk space, and only 2.5GB of monthly transfer (kindly donated by Plasma). More images, more formatting and it will be over the limits soon.

FBDOC tags must be used because there are no other marks or tags, the source will be taken from the database records, not from the generated web pages. The records have nothing but the Wiki formatting, that doesn't help making the parsing to other formats easy to do as any contributor would follow his own rules if no predefined tags were used.

Why complicate the formatting, i don't get it.. See any open-source docs, nobody cares about eye candy, the content is what matters, forget the cosmetics.

So again, while the wiki a magnitude easier to edit, it will be much complex to convert to anything else than HTML. While your part will be simplified, mine will be harder, as i will have to convert them to CHM, PDF and possibly to man pages for being used in Linux. Having to hand edit later is not an option, or it will become an maintenance hell everytime the docs are updated.
Logged

aetherfox
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1071



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2005, 07:14:57 AM »

You should use sourceforge's hosting instead.  I think it's unlimited bandwidth, and as much space as you can justify.

I personally think that the wiki is the most important format there is, not the 'intermediary' format - think about it....it's going to be the most up to date, most up with the latest version than any output that's going to lag behind.

Online help is also something that many programs are leaning towards - MSDN for example releases offline help, but it lags far behind the leading-edge documentation on the internet.

I think aesthetics is very important when it comes to something like this.  And while I think we should all thank Plasma for holding out this long, maybe you need to consider shifting to sourceforge or something if problems arise.
Logged

~''i|~thrFx~|i''~-  
avinash.vora - http://www.avinashv.net
keeling
Forum Regular
**
Posts: 149



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2005, 11:03:29 AM »

Didn't Urger say that the other site he had started had unlimited space promised to the project?

If space is going to be a concern, perhaps a link from FB.net might be better than hosting it on FB.net.

$1.00 - .98
Logged
Jofers
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1040



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2005, 02:13:17 PM »

I'll host it at qb45.com, but it would still take a big cut from fb.net's traffic.  I don't know if that's good or bad, depends on what you're trying to achieve with the website.

Aesthetics ARE important, but trying to inject them into the documentation is not.  A script can update the html/xhtml version each week easily, and that can be formatted as complicatedly as we need.

I'm sure wildcard would also gladly offer his server, but he already does so much for people here, I wouldn't try and pressure him into it.
Logged
v3cz0r
I hold this place together
*****
Posts: 924



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2005, 02:36:37 PM »

The sf.net host services are painful, phpMyAdmin can take 4 minutes to load the *main* page, making any DB changes take 1-2 minutes, i don't want to use it anymore. It stills limited to 100MB though.

That wiki was a free one, meaning you have no access to the DB, without that it will be way harder to strip out the generated web pages, not taking into account the server probably have an anti-leech protection, retrieving 300+ pages using an automated script would probably get my IP banned.

The current hosting is enough, by now.. traffic is below 1GB as fb.net has almost no images and the contents are gziped - the number of daily served pages grew 3 times since the wiki was added though..
Logged

aetherfox
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1071



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2005, 03:17:22 PM »

Using some semantic and standards compliance markup with CSS for presentation, fb.net could reduce the bandwidth strains drastically and become more functional too.

Remember, the browser stores CSS files in cache...
Logged

~''i|~thrFx~|i''~-  
avinash.vora - http://www.avinashv.net
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!