Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <1820492.ZBGHdalzjF@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:23:24 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <1868da91-d142-49ee-8b09-27c0983c1af4@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <1463892.vp2pE7osQE@PointedEars.de> <2715826.m0UDekTA75@PointedEars.de> <15797403.gaI5B2VX2m@PointedEars.de> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 188 NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Dec 2012 23:23:26 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 266c829e.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=lfUY3T:\b4VI?44J>Z[:RQMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kFYBYU3JEo]E=ciaAJORSZ X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17764 Scott Sauyet wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet newsgroup should not be discussed >>>> on the Web, like on GitHub. >>> I agree with this. I was proposing GitHub not as a replacement for >>> discussion on the group but as an adjunct to it, and as an easy way >>> for multiple people to work on the same set of documents. My thought >>> was that a post to the group might explain that the poster has several >>> proposed changes to FAQ entry #XYZ, detail those proposed changes, and >>> then mention a GitHub commit to the poster's copy of the repository >>> for people interested in making further changes to this version. If >>> the poster also mentions a pull request to the main branch, she or he >>> would be asking permission of the group to update the official FAQ. >> >> This will be slow, if even feasible. Look at this thread. Can you tell >> how long, if measurable, it is going to take for a change to be agreed on >> and implemented? Who exactly is "the group"? > > Does GitHub make this any more difficult, Yes, for one it will exclude those who do not want to or cannot access the Web or a git client (while discussing) but still want to participate in the discussion. > or are you objecting to holding the discussions of changes on > comp.lang.javascript itself? No, but I have serious doubts as to your proposition of the format of those discussions, and I do not think you have thought this through. “Permission of the group”? I ask you again, *who* *exactly* is “the group” to get permission from? > To me, GitHub would simply be a means to store proposed changes and make > it easier to share them. It would have little to do with whatever > consensus-seeking discussions we would hold in the group. That would mean for those who are willing to participate in the discussion to go forward and back between Usenet and the Web. >>>> [This may be not obvious to those who have learned of >>>> comp.lang.javascript only via Google Groups, but know that this >>>> newsgroup, and Usenet, is _not_ located on the Web nor has it much to >>>> do with the Internet. It is only mirrored there, for example by >>>> Google. See also .] >>> ACK, except for "nor has it much to do with the Internet." The >>> internet certainly encompasses Usenet. >> >> You are mistaken. Please read the referenced Wikipedia article, among >> other material on this topic, more carefully. > > I've been using USENET for more than 20 years. Around 2000, I wrote > an NNTP implementation as a project to learn more about Java > networking APIs. I've never seen USENET used on any infrastructure > other than Internet Protocol networks. Perhaps it once was. It was (Usenet predates the Internet) and still is. > But that's how I usually define "the Internet", There is a saying (at least in German-speaking Usenet), which roughly translates into “The Internet is the cable-thing; Usenet is the people- thing”. The Internet is a *network* of interconnected networks (hence the name) using a certain protocol stack. The (World Wide) Web is an application of/on the Internet. Usenet can make use of, but does not require the Internet protocol stack and infrastructure. Nowadays it requires from the Internet merely its message format, as specified in RFC 5322 (and predecessors) and referred to in RFC 5536 (and predecessors). > and such seems consonant with . > > The article you mention starts "Usenet is a worldwide distributed > Internet discussion system," which seems to agree with my notion. Can > you explain more clearly why you think Usenet does not have much to do > with the Internet? See above. I am sorry to have referred you to an apparently substandard/easily misleading article. Try this one: >>> [ ... ] Although I haven't done so in several years, I also have >>> maintained large amounts of data in XML-based systems, often with >>> great success. I'm arguing that it's not really appropriate here. >> >> AIUI, extracting the question-answer pairs one by one into a directory >> structure containing Markdown documents comes closer to creating data >> than reusing data. > > I'm not sure whether I would want to debate that point or not. But > the main goal from my point of view is to have a maintainable FAQ. > I'm willing to break with the existing infrastructure if doing so will > make this goal easier. A fundamental misconception. Breaking with an existing infrastructure can by definition only make an implementation task *harder* because you will also have to build your own, new infrastructure then. That does not mean that the end result could not be *better*. But it requires more effort than building on something that already exists. As a result, it requires more man-hours to become at least adequate to what is intended to be replaced. >>>> An often overlooked advantage of XML is that […] it is a >>>> platform-independent, *structured* *data* format […]. The advantage of >>>> such a data format, if used properly, is that presentation of data is >>>> virtually independent of the stored data. >>> Actually, XML was more intended, in my understanding, as a document >>> markup language, and the use of it as a structured data format was >>> more of an afterthought. While the advantage you suggest is real for >>> some applications, I can't help but wonder if it's actually a >>> disadvantage in this case. >> You may want to read pp. to clarify >> that misconception as well. > > Yes, "afterthought" was too strong, but the basic point still stands. > The SGML and HTML heritages of XML revolve more around arbitrary > documents than around sophisticated data structures. In fact, the > article you cite includes, "Although the design of XML focuses on > documents, it is widely used for the representation of arbitrary data > structures." It is used for arbitrary data, but was designed for > documents. The misconception here is that “document” must mean text. >>> While we could of course break the FAQ into multiple separate >>> XML documents, if we're going to break it up, then it's an appropriate >>> time to reconsider the format. >> I do not think so. What is needed is a *structured* data format, so that >> the TOC writes itself, for example. > > This, of course, is one of the biggest problems with the method I've > been promoting. The TOC hierarchy would have to be presented somehow > as metadata. I have some reasonable ideas, but they would not be as > natural as they are in the XML format. The question would be whether > the trade-offs are appropriate. Yes, indeed. >> [ ... ] >>>> Here is how I would like this to work for a start: >>>> >>>> - Glaringly obvious errors I will fix by myself. (But you are welcome >>>> to point them out to me anyway. See below.) >>> Please, though, even when they're trivial, at least note the changes >>> to the group. They can be bundled together if they are not >>> particularly important ("This week, the following minor fixes to the >>> FAQ were made:...") but the group should still have a chance to note >>> them in case someone thinks they were not actually errors. >> To that end, I have included the “Change log” link and intend to post the >> URL to it in FAQ suggestion summaries. > > I'm just hoping that it would not be the case that the only discussion > of these details occurred on the Web. How did you get that idea? This is Usenet. > Even if it was a brief sentence in a post to the group, that would be > preferable to a Web-only technique. (And yes, this is from a Google > Groups user, if a reluctant one.) > […] Ex falso quodlibet. >> [ ... ] >>> I for one would feel much better contributing if the copyright were held >>> by the group or if it were explicitly left in the public domain. >> >> Something like the Creative Commons licenses appears to be more >> reasonable here (the CC Attribution-ShareAlike License is used by >> Wikipedia). >> >> IANAL. > > Nor I. But something like that would probably be appropriate. ACK. PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from (404-comp.)