> Excerpts from Ben Fritz's message of Tue Feb 21 16:48:36 +0100 2012:
>> Why not a real wiki with real wiki syntax? Or why not just create
>> pages on the existing wikia.com wiki with prominent links from
>> vim.org? code.google.com also provides a wiki, IIRC. I don't see a
>> need to create something new.
> Because its you who can download it and use it as local resource.
> That in turn could make people contribute little bit more because
> *editing in vim* is that easy :)
>
> And no, I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel,
> it does already exist:
>
> solution 1: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/gitit
> solution 2: Vim help file syntax
> solution 3: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2226
>
> Why not mediawiki? Because sending patches requires "logging in"
> Because you can't use Vim for editing (I know that there are plugins
> which come close - but - we just *love* Vim, don't we?)
I think this sounds like a good idea. I think it's important that it
looks good and not dated and that it still provides a good interface
for scripts (including the existing ones). A few random thoughts in
no particular order:
* Gitit looks pretty (as long as we don't go within a country mile of
that logo!) which is probably a good thing. It also seems to allow
editing by people who don't want to bother with getting a copy of the
code etc;
* The other two both suffer from a rather poor visual impression
unless we get into custom parsers/converters and essentially re-invent
the wheel.
* Having said that, having a way of converting Vim help file syntax
into something pretty would be really nice, especially if it could be
automatically presented for scripts that contain doc/*
* Just using something like (extended) markdown or rest or whatever
would probably give access to more beautifiers than we could ever
possibly want.
* This is a personal opinion and I fully understand that others will
disagree fervently, but my experiences with Git have generally
involved things going wrong and stuff being lost so for the
git-inexperienced among us, it might be worth either (in order of my
preference) using Mercurial (like the vim source itself), offering
both Mercurial and Git access depending on what the user prefers or
giving instructions on how to use hg-git to give people another
alternative.
* +1 for "not mediawiki"
* The MooTools Core example you gave looks good, but we need to make
absolutely sure that there is still an equivalent of
http://mootools.net/ (i.e. a landing page that tells you what Vim is).
I hate arriving at the page of a project and being presented with all
the news about the project but then having to spend 10 minutes
searching the site to figure out what it actually is! Even
www.vim.org does this to some extent, but at least it's somewhere on
the first page, albeit hidden halfway down on the left-hand side.
Al
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
No comments:
Post a Comment