www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Idea with webpages an wiki

reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would 
be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.  
Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki 
page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could 
comment + provide examples on every D page.

What do you think?
Walter?

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 16 2004
next sibling parent reply EricAnderton at yahoo dot com <EricAnderton_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <capjgt$30uc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would 
be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.  
Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki 
page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could 
comment + provide examples on every D page.

What do you think?
Walter?

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

You mean, kind of like the user-comments in the online PHP manual? (http://www.php.net) I think the wiki was already headed in that direction for 'unofficial' documentation/tips/whatever but you're right: why not add the whole 'official' manual while we're at it. You got my vote. :) - Eric
Jun 16 2004
parent Kevin Bealer <Kevin_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <capmmb$44s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, EricAnderton at yahoo dot com
says...
In article <capjgt$30uc$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would 
be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.  
Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki 
page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could 
comment + provide examples on every D page.

What do you think?
Walter?

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

You mean, kind of like the user-comments in the online PHP manual? (http://www.php.net) I think the wiki was already headed in that direction for 'unofficial' documentation/tips/whatever but you're right: why not add the whole 'official' manual while we're at it. You got my vote. :) - Eric

. And with the understanding that whatever is posted is fair game when Walter or others republish the manual. Just to nip that issue in the bud. Kevin
Jun 16 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:capjgt$30uc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would
 be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.
 Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki
 page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could
 comment + provide examples on every D page.

 What do you think?
 Walter?

 -- 
 -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Jun 16 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Walter wrote:

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.
"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:capjgt$30uc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
  

The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would
be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.
Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki
page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could
comment + provide examples on every D page.

What do you think?
Walter?

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
    


-- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 16 2004
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
J Anderson wrote:
 Walter wrote:
 
 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.
 
 "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
 news:capjgt$30uc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
  

 The wiki is good and all but its not very official.   I think it would
 be a good idea to have one wiki page for every page in the D manual.
 Then at the end of every page on the D website have a link to that wiki
 page with something like "Want to know more".  That way users could
 comment + provide examples on every D page.

 What do you think?
 Walter?

 -- 
 -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/



-- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jun 16 2004
next sibling parent reply Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <car095$25m4$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

abi.html    -> DocComments/ABI     "Application Binary Interface"
intro.html  -> DocComments/Intro   "Introduction"
phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos  "Phobos (Runtime Library)"

These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've 
set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the 
current convention.

What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my 
convention if people like it.

One thought - phobos.html is an extremely big file. I would prefer that, if not it, then at least the user comments, be split into one per Phobos package. (In fact, if necessary, one per function, like PHP does). It would be nice to doxygenate the Phobos functions - but I suspect you need the source code for that. (I could be wrong. If it's possible to doxygenate using just import stubs then someone with a kind heart and lots of spare time* might like to start on that) Jill *assuming such a creature exists
Jun 17 2004
parent Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
Arcane Jill schrieb:

 It would be nice to doxygenate the Phobos functions - but I suspect you need
the
 source code for that.

What makes you think that we don't have the source? -eye
Jun 18 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

won't probably be able to get online very soon. So you'll need to do that yourself. I look forward to see how it progresses in two weeks. cya. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 17 2004
parent jcc7 cox.net writes:
In article <case03$18us$2 digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

won't probably be able to get online very soon. So you'll need to do that yourself. I look forward to see how it progresses in two weeks. cya. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Have fun in Melbourne. Since no one has objected yet, I've started setting it all up like I suggested. I expect finish it off tonight after I get home from work. Here's where I'm working on it (I've already added from Intro to Arrays): http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments And in response to Arcane Jill: "One thought - phobos.html is an extremely big file. I would prefer that, if not it, then at least the user comments, be split into one per Phobos package. (In fact, if necessary, one per function, like PHP does)." Certainly that will be necessary eventually, but it might be a little premature to set up all of the sub-subpages right now. Here's what it looks like with a sub-subpage: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Phobos Justin (jcc7)
Jun 17 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

You at least need to put the full names in the document itself, so we can know which are the DMD ones. We need to see amendments on those pages but have them grouped on the amendments page as well. Why - 1) People will put ammendments on these pages if you don't tell them where to go. 2) A localised place is primarily for Walter so that he doesn't need to visit many pages. 3) I would like to see the amendments on the assoisated page. I'm not going to go looking for them by going to the amendments page. 4) The actual admendment only needs to be written in one location but linked to by the other locations. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 17 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
J Anderson wrote:
 J C Calvarese wrote:
 
 J Anderson wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

You at least need to put the full names in the document itself, so we can know which are the DMD ones. We need to see amendments on those pages but have them grouped on the amendments page as well. Why -

I'll put the "full title" on each comment page. That's not a problem. But I'm confused. Aren't all of the comment pages "the DMD ones"? I thought the idea was to annotate the official documentation. We can talk about other documentation somewhere else on the wiki.
 1) People will put ammendments on these pages if you don't tell them 
 where to go.

What's the difference between an amendment and a comment? Can't they be the same? Aren't they often the same?
 2) A localised place is primarily for Walter so that he doesn't need to 
 visit many pages.

I'm all for making this easy for Walter.
 3) I would like to see the amendments on the assoisated page.  I'm not 
 going to go looking for them by going to the amendments page.

I'd like the see all of the corrections, amendments, anotations, and comments on the same page. They are similar concepts not easily differentiated.
 4) The actual admendment only needs to be written in one location but 
 linked to by the other locations.

Now I'm even more confused. The "amendments" show up twice? Once on the comment page and again on the amendment page? How about just once on the comment page? I now there are too many pages on there right now. I'll delete the extras once I'm sure I'm not going to mess anyone up. For what it's worth (perhaps nothing), I put a slick table up at http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DocComments to point out where I think all the pages should be. (Now the question is: "What's supposed to be on the pages?") I think my brain has already shut down for the evening. Maybe this will all make sense to me in the morning. Sorry for the rambling. -- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jun 17 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add 
 the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

You at least need to put the full names in the document itself, so we can know which are the DMD ones. We need to see amendments on those pages but have them grouped on the amendments page as well. Why -

I'll put the "full title" on each comment page. That's not a problem. But I'm confused. Aren't all of the comment pages "the DMD ones"? I thought the idea was to annotate the official documentation. We can talk about other documentation somewhere else on the wiki.
 1) People will put ammendments on these pages if you don't tell them 
 where to go.

What's the difference between an amendment and a comment? Can't they be the same? Aren't they often the same?
 2) A localised place is primarily for Walter so that he doesn't need 
 to visit many pages.

I'm all for making this easy for Walter.
 3) I would like to see the amendments on the assoisated page.  I'm 
 not going to go looking for them by going to the amendments page.

I'd like the see all of the corrections, amendments, anotations, and comments on the same page. They are similar concepts not easily differentiated.

quality, ie this doesn't work currently but you can do this. Or here's something cool you can do. Admendements are for typos and important details.
 4) The actual admendment only needs to be written in one location but 
 linked to by the other locations.

Now I'm even more confused. The "amendments" show up twice? Once on the comment page and again on the amendment page? How about just once on the comment page? I now there are too many pages on there right now. I'll delete the extras once I'm sure I'm not going to mess anyone up. For what it's worth (perhaps nothing), I put a slick table up at http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DocComments to point out where I think all the pages should be. (Now the question is: "What's supposed to be on the pages?") I think my brain has already shut down for the evening. Maybe this will all make sense to me in the morning. Sorry for the rambling.

one extra page with a list of pages that have amendments would be fine. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 17 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
J Anderson wrote:
 J C Calvarese wrote:
 
 J Anderson wrote:


 I'd like the see all of the corrections, amendments, anotations, and 
 comments on the same page. They are similar concepts not easily 
 differentiated.

quality, ie this doesn't work currently but you can do this. Or here's something cool you can do. Admendements are for typos and important details.

The important stuff will probably still get posted here or at the Bugs newsgroup. I think that will remain to be the most likely way to get Walter's attention.
 
 4) The actual admendment only needs to be written in one location but 
 linked to by the other locations.

Now I'm even more confused. The "amendments" show up twice? Once on the comment page and again on the amendment page? How about just once on the comment page? I now there are too many pages on there right now. I'll delete the extras once I'm sure I'm not going to mess anyone up. For what it's worth (perhaps nothing), I put a slick table up at http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DocComments to point out where I think all the pages should be. (Now the question is: "What's supposed to be on the pages?") I think my brain has already shut down for the evening. Maybe this will all make sense to me in the morning. Sorry for the rambling.

one extra page with a list of pages that have amendments would be fine.

Okay. I understand better now. I still think there are some flaws in this plan. 1. Rules will be broken. Just because we make up a bunch of rules for people to follow when they're amending doesn't mean that anyone will follow them. 2. We're talking about volunteers. I like to follow rules, but I'm not getting paid to do any of this. People will only jump so many hoops for free. I think we're putting up too many obstacles for contributions. 3. Does my definition of amendment match yours? I still think it's hard to distinguish between an amendment and a comment. I'm hoping that the comments will be of such high quality that they would ALL add value if they were added to the official documentation. (Yes, I know I'm dreaming.) 4. Is Walter going to actually look at the amendments page? Just because I'm adding to the amendments page doesn't mean that Walter's seeing it. I think the 3-alarm documentation bugs will continue to appear on newsgroups first and foremost. I was thinking maybe he'd glance at the comment pages occassionally and integrate stuff from there, but I guess there will be a lot of pages from which to choose. And many of them might be blank. I suppose he might be able to keep his eye on http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?browse=RecentChanges like the rest of us. (Yes, I know I'm dreaming again.) I won't stand in your way on this, but I'm still not certain it can work. -- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jun 17 2004
parent Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> writes:
Trac (http://projects.edgewall.com/trac/) uses a wiki and you can get an 
RSS feed on Wiki changes.  That way, someone can police the masses as 
they make changes.

I'm thinking about using it at dsource.org after demmegod's suggestion. 
  Thought it might help here.

BA

J C Calvarese wrote:
 J Anderson wrote:
 
 J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:


...
 I'd like the see all of the corrections, amendments, anotations, and 
 comments on the same page. They are similar concepts not easily 
 differentiated.

quality, ie this doesn't work currently but you can do this. Or here's something cool you can do. Admendements are for typos and important details.

The important stuff will probably still get posted here or at the Bugs newsgroup. I think that will remain to be the most likely way to get Walter's attention.
 4) The actual admendment only needs to be written in one location 
 but linked to by the other locations.

Now I'm even more confused. The "amendments" show up twice? Once on the comment page and again on the amendment page? How about just once on the comment page? I now there are too many pages on there right now. I'll delete the extras once I'm sure I'm not going to mess anyone up. For what it's worth (perhaps nothing), I put a slick table up at http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DocComments to point out where I think all the pages should be. (Now the question is: "What's supposed to be on the pages?") I think my brain has already shut down for the evening. Maybe this will all make sense to me in the morning. Sorry for the rambling.

Just one extra page with a list of pages that have amendments would be fine.

Okay. I understand better now. I still think there are some flaws in this plan. 1. Rules will be broken. Just because we make up a bunch of rules for people to follow when they're amending doesn't mean that anyone will follow them. 2. We're talking about volunteers. I like to follow rules, but I'm not getting paid to do any of this. People will only jump so many hoops for free. I think we're putting up too many obstacles for contributions. 3. Does my definition of amendment match yours? I still think it's hard to distinguish between an amendment and a comment. I'm hoping that the comments will be of such high quality that they would ALL add value if they were added to the official documentation. (Yes, I know I'm dreaming.) 4. Is Walter going to actually look at the amendments page? Just because I'm adding to the amendments page doesn't mean that Walter's seeing it. I think the 3-alarm documentation bugs will continue to appear on newsgroups first and foremost. I was thinking maybe he'd glance at the comment pages occassionally and integrate stuff from there, but I guess there will be a lot of pages from which to choose. And many of them might be blank. I suppose he might be able to keep his eye on http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?browse=RecentChanges like the rest of us. (Yes, I know I'm dreaming again.) I won't stand in your way on this, but I'm still not certain it can work.

Jun 18 2004
prev sibling parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 Walter wrote:

 Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
 links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.
  

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Joel and everyone, I have some suggestions. I'm not sure why you've added the new sections rather than adding to the existing DocumenationAmendments section (I think Helmut added it for this purpose). Instead of having two competing wiki sections (DocumentationAmendments and Digital_Mars_Comment) perhaps we should just have one. If DocumentationAmendments is too verbose, we can delete that and recreate it as DocComments or DocumentComments. Also, instead of having separate pages, we could have subpages: DocComments/Arrays DocComments/Phobos I think it'd be helpful if the wiki page corresponded with the HTML filename (the filenames are shorter and probably less likely to change): abi.html -> DocComments/ABI "Application Binary Interface" intro.html -> DocComments/Intro "Introduction" phobos.html -> DocComments/Phobos "Phobos (Runtime Library)" These are just ideas. I know you've put some time into the way you've set it up, but I'm not sure how easy to maintain it would be with the current convention. What do you guys think? I don't mind setting it up according to my convention if people like it.

Also links section should be about that specific topic (tutorials ect...). For the links page I did pages of links as that seemed appropriate. -- -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jun 17 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:caqs55$2060$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Thanks. So far, I've done it with the first 3 pages and the faq.
Jun 17 2004
parent J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Walter wrote:
 "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
 news:caqs55$2060$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Walter wrote:


Sounds like a fine idea to me. Set up the wiki pages, and I'll add the
links. The documentation can certainly use improvement.

Ok, you can find all the pages at: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Digital_Mars_Comment However please use the direct links as nobody likes going though multiple pages to get somewhere.

Thanks. So far, I've done it with the first 3 pages and the faq.

Cool. This is a terrific concept. I think it'll come in really handy. As I mentioned to Joel in another branch of this thread, I made some suggestions for the pages to blend into the rest of the wiki a little better (such as using subpages and a naming convention). He seemed receptive to the ideas (but lacking in time), so I created them on the wiki. The home page for these new pages is http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DocComments. Obviously, it doesn't make any sense to have two sets of these pages, so I'll delete whichever set isn't linked to by your webpages (once the dust clears). -- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jun 17 2004