Hi,
Does Geany have a wiki somewhere which users and developers can edit with tutorials, examples, links, screenshots and so on? I looked around a bit and I couldn't find one. I notice that the main website is a Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
I think it would be a good idea. I'm curious what others think.
Cheers, Matthew Brush (codebrainz)
On 15 March 2011 13:59, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
Hi,
Does Geany have a wiki somewhere which users and developers can edit with tutorials, examples, links, screenshots and so on? I looked around a bit and I couldn't find one. I notice that the main website is a Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
I think it would be a good idea. I'm curious what others think.
Cheers, Matthew Brush (codebrainz)
I think it's a great idea. Perhaps a separate installation of PmWiki for this purpose?
Am 15.03.2011 04:59, schrieb Matthew Brush:
Does Geany have a wiki somewhere which users and developers can edit with tutorials, examples, links, screenshots and so on? I looked around a bit and I couldn't find one. I notice that the main website is a Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
No. The normal pages at geany.org are not editable by general ppl at the moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
I think it would be a good idea. I'm curious what others think.
A nice idea to have such thing.
Cheers, Frank
Am 15.03.2011 13:01, schrieb Křištof Želechovski:
Dnia wtorek, 15 marca 2011 o 10:21:35 Frank Lanitz napisał(a):
moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
strongly recommend
Stupid English. Yepp, you are right. I wanted to say strongly as in 'I will force anybody to accept me opinion' ;)
Cheers, Frank
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 10:45:51 am Frank Lanitz wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 13:01, schrieb Křištof Želechovski:
Dnia wtorek, 15 marca 2011 o 10:21:35 Frank Lanitz napisał(a):
moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
strongly recommend
Stupid English. Yepp, you are right. I wanted to say strongly as in 'I will force anybody to accept me opinion' ;)
I guess you meant to say: "heartily recommend".
Randy Kramer
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
2011/3/15 Randy Kramer rhkramer@gmail.com:
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 10:45:51 am Frank Lanitz wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 13:01, schrieb Křištof Želechovski:
Dnia wtorek, 15 marca 2011 o 10:21:35 Frank Lanitz napisał(a):
moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
strongly recommend
Stupid English. Yepp, you are right. I wanted to say strongly as in 'I will force anybody to accept me opinion' ;)
I guess you meant to say: "heartily recommend".
Randy Kramer _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Am 15.03.2011 16:36, schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I'd like that idea. What do you thinking of using here? MoinMoin, docuwiki, Mediawiki? I'd would also have some place to host the stuff. Or maybe put it also on geany.org but only Enrico can tell about this.
Cheers, Frank
I have own server so we are flexible.
I prefer a lightweight like docuwiki.
2011/3/15 Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de:
Am 15.03.2011 16:36, schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I'd like that idea. What do you thinking of using here? MoinMoin, docuwiki, Mediawiki? I'd would also have some place to host the stuff. Or maybe put it also on geany.org but only Enrico can tell about this.
Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 17:02 +0100 schrieb Frank Lanitz:
Am 15.03.2011 16:36, schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I'd like that idea. What do you thinking of using here? MoinMoin, docuwiki, Mediawiki? I'd would also have some place to host the stuff. Or maybe put it also on geany.org but only Enrico can tell about this.
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
On 03/15/11 15:53, Dominic Hopf wrote:
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
Outside of the Geany developers (and/or doc writers), I don't think it would be as common to users for this purpose. That being said, MoinMoin seems to support it out of the box[1], and MediaWiki via an extension[2].
[1] http://moinmo.in/ReStructuredText [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RstToHtml
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On 16 March 2011 10:29, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 03/15/11 15:53, Dominic Hopf wrote:
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
Outside of the Geany developers (and/or doc writers), I don't think it would be as common to users for this purpose. That being said, MoinMoin seems to support it out of the box[1], and MediaWiki via an extension[2].
[1] http://moinmo.in/ReStructuredText [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RstToHtml
I don't really mind what markup, but I will note that some are pushing for Creole to become a standard & IIUC several wikis now support it.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Ref your previous, yes something like having a CAPTCHA to register is what I was thinking of, (although I often have trouble with the !@#$%^&*( things, no-i-am-not-a-machine :-)
Cheers Lex
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On 16 March 2011 09:35, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 10:29, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 03/15/11 15:53, Dominic Hopf wrote:
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
Outside of the Geany developers (and/or doc writers), I don't think it would be as common to users for this purpose. That being said, MoinMoin seems to support it out of the box[1], and MediaWiki via an extension[2].
[1] http://moinmo.in/ReStructuredText [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RstToHtml
I don't really mind what markup, but I will note that some are pushing for Creole to become a standard & IIUC several wikis now support it.
I'm guessing that the idea of seeking a wiki which supports ReST was that if the newsletter was produced in ReST markup, it could be cut-and-pasted into the wiki.
[snip]
Cheers Lex
On 16 March 2011 10:42, Russell Dickenson russelldickenson@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 09:35, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 10:29, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 03/15/11 15:53, Dominic Hopf wrote:
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
Outside of the Geany developers (and/or doc writers), I don't think it would be as common to users for this purpose. That being said, MoinMoin seems to support it out of the box[1], and MediaWiki via an extension[2].
[1] http://moinmo.in/ReStructuredText [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RstToHtml
I don't really mind what markup, but I will note that some are pushing for Creole to become a standard & IIUC several wikis now support it.
I'm guessing that the idea of seeking a wiki which supports ReST was that if the newsletter was produced in ReST markup, it could be cut-and-pasted into the wiki.
Geany's documentation is ReST, and as we discussed early in the newsletter discussion, probably better to keep to one tool.
But the wiki is likely to have wider use than those changing Geany documentation (hopefully :-) so its markup should be a more widely used one. If it also supports ReST and so allows pasting of newsletters, documentation etc then that would be a good point in favor of that particular wiki engine.
Cheers Lex
[snip]
Cheers Lex
-- Russell Dickenson
On 16 March 2011 09:48, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 10:42, Russell Dickenson russelldickenson@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 09:35, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 10:29, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 03/15/11 15:53, Dominic Hopf wrote:
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
Outside of the Geany developers (and/or doc writers), I don't think it would be as common to users for this purpose. That being said, MoinMoin seems to support it out of the box[1], and MediaWiki via an extension[2].
[1] http://moinmo.in/ReStructuredText [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RstToHtml
I don't really mind what markup, but I will note that some are pushing for Creole to become a standard & IIUC several wikis now support it.
I'm guessing that the idea of seeking a wiki which supports ReST was that if the newsletter was produced in ReST markup, it could be cut-and-pasted into the wiki.
Geany's documentation is ReST, and as we discussed early in the newsletter discussion, probably better to keep to one tool.
But the wiki is likely to have wider use than those changing Geany documentation (hopefully :-) so its markup should be a more widely used one. If it also supports ReST and so allows pasting of newsletters, documentation etc then that would be a good point in favor of that particular wiki engine.
Cheers Lex
Please ignore my previous message. :P I don't know why I mentioned the newsletter. The proposal for a wiki whose content is able to be edited by Geany's community members was so that hints, tips, snippets etc could be shared. I claim that cosmic waves temporarily interfered with my brain waves.
On 03/15/11 17:26, Russell Dickenson wrote:
Please ignore my previous message. :P I don't know why I mentioned the newsletter. The proposal for a wiki whose content is able to be edited by Geany's community members was so that hints, tips, snippets etc could be shared. I claim that cosmic waves temporarily interfered with my brain waves.
They are (or could be) related. For example, the newsletter could get ideas for stuff to write about from the Wiki, like topics for Feature Focus and so on. Likewise, the Wiki could be used to expand on things from the newsletter. It could also serve as a sort of scratchpad to work on the newsletter (or ideas for the newsletter, topics wishlist, etc) before the issues are released.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:55:49 -0700 Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
It could also serve as a sort of scratchpad to work on the newsletter (or ideas for the newsletter, topics wishlist, etc) before the issues are released.
I had the chance to do this within some other project during the last year and I don't feel much comfortable with it. I'm fine on copying content from newsletter to wiki and back but I'd prefer to keep writing of newsletter inside a separate way.
Cheers, Frank
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:48:14 +1100 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 10:42, Russell Dickenson russelldickenson@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 09:35, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2011 10:29, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:
On 03/15/11 15:53, Dominic Hopf wrote:
To be consistent with other documents: Is there one that supports restructuredText out of the box?
Outside of the Geany developers (and/or doc writers), I don't think it would be as common to users for this purpose. That being said, MoinMoin seems to support it out of the box[1], and MediaWiki via an extension[2].
[1] http://moinmo.in/ReStructuredText [2] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RstToHtml
I don't really mind what markup, but I will note that some are pushing for Creole to become a standard & IIUC several wikis now support it.
I'm guessing that the idea of seeking a wiki which supports ReST was that if the newsletter was produced in ReST markup, it could be cut-and-pasted into the wiki.
Geany's documentation is ReST, and as we discussed early in the newsletter discussion, probably better to keep to one tool.
But the wiki is likely to have wider use than those changing Geany documentation (hopefully :-) so its markup should be a more widely used one. If it also supports ReST and so allows pasting of newsletters, documentation etc then that would be a good point in favor of that particular wiki engine.
Yes. Also it should support some kind of normal wiki syntax as many people know from common used installations for mediawiki -> [] etc. But most of wikis I did see last time are doing this.
Cheers, Frank
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:02:20 +0100, Frank wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 16:36, schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I'd like that idea. What do you thinking of using here? MoinMoin, docuwiki, Mediawiki? I'd would also have some place to host the stuff. Or maybe put it also on geany.org but only Enrico can tell about this.
As I said in another mail in this thread, I'd suggest to keep the new wiki near to the rest of the Geany services, i.e. directly on geany.org.
Regarding the wiki software, basically I don't mind which wiki. Though I have some technical preferences about the software.
I'd prefer to have a PHP based solution as it would nicely integrate into the existing Lighttpd+FastCGI setup, from my personal experience I'd vote for Dokuwiki or PMWiki. Still, this is just a wish of me, not really a requirement.
I agree that the main focus in choosing the wiki software should be in usability for both, authors and readers.
Regards, Enrico
On 03/16/11 12:18, Enrico Tröger wrote:
Regarding the wiki software, basically I don't mind which wiki. Though I have some technical preferences about the software.
I'd prefer to have a PHP based solution as it would nicely integrate into the existing Lighttpd+FastCGI setup, from my personal experience I'd vote for Dokuwiki or PMWiki.
MediaWiki is probably the most standard Wiki software (ie. Wikipedia and friends) and it's written in PHP. It also supports ReST as noted in this thread. I've never heard of DocuWiki though, it looks interesting too. I haven't looked at PMWiki yet.
I agree that the main focus in choosing the wiki software should be in usability for both, authors and readers.
MediaWiki has that going for it, for sure. It's probably also top of the pile in security and stability (assumption based on its widespread use). Personally I don't feel too strongly about which software, but I would think something familiar to people who may edit other Wikis would be good.
MediaWiki is also in the Debian repositories (at least for Squeeze). I'm not sure though what distro the server is running or if having a package even matters.
Thanks, Matthew Brush
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:46:32 -0700, Matthew wrote:
On 03/16/11 12:18, Enrico Tröger wrote:
Regarding the wiki software, basically I don't mind which wiki. Though I have some technical preferences about the software.
I'd prefer to have a PHP based solution as it would nicely integrate into the existing Lighttpd+FastCGI setup, from my personal experience I'd vote for Dokuwiki or PMWiki.
MediaWiki is probably the most standard Wiki software (ie. Wikipedia and friends) and it's written in PHP. It also supports ReST as noted in this thread. I've never heard of DocuWiki though, it looks interesting too. I haven't looked at PMWiki yet.
I agree that the main focus in choosing the wiki software should be in usability for both, authors and readers.
MediaWiki has that going for it, for sure. It's probably also top of the pile in security and stability (assumption based on its widespread use). Personally I don't feel too strongly about which software, but I would think something familiar to people who may edit other Wikis would be good.
MediaWiki is also in the Debian repositories (at least for Squeeze).
Cool.
I'm not sure though what distro the server is running or if having a package even matters.
Currently Debian Lenny, but it'll get Squeeze sometime soon. But I'll announce this separately as there might be some downtime.
Regards, Enrico
This website might help you find the best wiki platform for your needs: http://www.wikimatrix.org/wizard.php Or you can view some opinions on SO: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/541675/whats-the-best-open-source-wiki-pl...
If there's need for UI/functionality changes on the wiki, i can provide help :)
Matthew Brush wrote:
MediaWiki is probably the most standard Wiki software (ie. Wikipedia and friends) and it's written in PHP. It also supports ReST as noted in this thread. I've never heard of DocuWiki though, it looks interesting too. I haven't looked at PMWiki yet.
There's a few geany users around who could help with MediaWiki too, including any custom extension and skinning requirements (waving!)
[...] Personally I don't feel too strongly about which software, but I would think something familiar to people who may edit other Wikis would be good.
I reckon there would be more people conversant in basic MediaWiki markup than most other wikis' markup styles.
PS: I really like the idea of having a wiki for geany. Would probably contribute something, as I reckon would others who generally just lurk here.
Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 16:36 +0100 schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I guess hosting is not that issue, actually. There are a lot of guys who have own (virtual) servers, including myself. But geany.org itself is already placed on a server and I think the sub domain should also go there. :)
Regards, Dominic
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:51:40 +0100 Dominic Hopf dmaphy@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 16:36 +0100 schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I guess hosting is not that issue, actually. There are a lot of guys who have own (virtual) servers, including myself. But geany.org itself is already placed on a server and I think the sub domain should also go there. :)
The box behind is already serving a lot so Enrico is the man who says here top or flop.
Cheers, Frank
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:20:59 +0100, Frank wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:51:40 +0100 Dominic Hopf dmaphy@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 16:36 +0100 schrieb Michael Spahn:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
I guess hosting is not that issue, actually. There are a lot of guys who have own (virtual) servers, including myself. But geany.org itself is already placed on a server and I think the sub domain should also go there. :)
The box behind is already serving a lot so Enrico is the man who says here top or flop.
Don't worry about the server, I'll take that it manages the load of the thousands and millions per second of Geany users :).
More seriously, the server does a quite a few things but it's still all well and it probably gets a boost soon. But even without, serving an additional website isn't a problem for the server especially not if it's just PHP (see my other mail about what Wiki to use for details).
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:36:27 +0100, Michael wrote:
I would offer the hosting and maintenance.
We could use a sub domain like wiki.geany.org, f.e.
Don't worry about the hosting, I think it should stay with the rest of the Geany services.
I'll setup wiki.geany.org as soon as we clarified the other details.
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:45:51 +0100 Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 13:01, schrieb Křištof Želechovski:
Dnia wtorek, 15 marca 2011 o 10:21:35 Frank Lanitz napisał(a):
moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
strongly recommend
Stupid English. Yepp, you are right. I wanted to say strongly as in 'I will force anybody to accept me opinion' ;)
"Heartily recommend"! And I agree that English is frequently stupid. :-)
Jon
On 03/15/11 02:21, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 04:59, schrieb Matthew Brush:
Does Geany have a wiki somewhere which users and developers can edit with tutorials, examples, links, screenshots and so on? I looked around a bit and I couldn't find one. I notice that the main website is a Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
No. The normal pages at geany.org are not editable by general ppl at the moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
I also hardily recommend that the main site not be user editable. I was simply noting that while I'm aware there technically is already a Wiki, I think it would be nice to have a *separate* user-editable Wiki.
I think it would be a good idea. I'm curious what others think.
A nice idea to have such thing.
Do you think this is something that could/should be hosted on the Geany website using MediaWiki, MoinMoin or similar software, or do you think it would be better to use a third party hosting like live.gnome.org or a similar service?
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:44:01 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey,
reviving the topic before it dies...
On 03/15/11 02:21, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 04:59, schrieb Matthew Brush:
Does Geany have a wiki somewhere which users and developers can edit with tutorials, examples, links, screenshots and so on? I looked around a bit and I couldn't find one. I notice that the main website is a Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
No. The normal pages at geany.org are not editable by general ppl at the moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
I also hardily recommend that the main site not be user editable. I was simply noting that while I'm aware there technically is already a Wiki, I think it would be nice to have a *separate* user-editable Wiki.
I think it would be a good idea. I'm curious what others think.
A nice idea to have such thing.
Do you think this is something that could/should be hosted on the Geany website using MediaWiki, MoinMoin or similar software, or do you think it would be better to use a third party hosting like live.gnome.org or a similar service?
as already earlier said in this thread, I'd prefer to host it on geany.org accessible via wiki.geany.org.
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
Any opinions?
Regards, Enrico
I haven't used neither of the mentioned wikis, but here are some interesting links that you might take a look at.
http://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/DokuWiki+PmWiki http://www.abcseo.com/blog/dokuwiki-vs-pmwiki http://www.wikimatrix.org/forum/t539-dokuwiki-pmwiki
Cheers :)
Le 31/03/2011 19:43, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
[...]
Do you think this is something that could/should be hosted on the Geany website using MediaWiki, MoinMoin or similar software, or do you think it would be better to use a third party hosting like live.gnome.org or a similar service?
as already earlier said in this thread, I'd prefer to host it on geany.org accessible via wiki.geany.org.
Agreed, much better.
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
I haven't tested PMWiki yet (I know, shame on me), but I really like DokuWiki (at least the syntax is far better than e.g. MediaWiki's one IMHO).
Cheers, Colomban
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:35:10 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 31/03/2011 19:43, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
[...]
Do you think this is something that could/should be hosted on the Geany website using MediaWiki, MoinMoin or similar software, or do you think it would be better to use a third party hosting like live.gnome.org or a similar service?
as already earlier said in this thread, I'd prefer to host it on geany.org accessible via wiki.geany.org.
Agreed, much better.
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
I haven't tested PMWiki yet (I know, shame on me), but I really like DokuWiki (at least the syntax is far better than e.g. MediaWiki's one IMHO).
Росен, thanks for the links. Two of them recommends DokuWiki over PMWiki for the purpose we are planning. And Colomban also seems to like DokuWiki.
So far, it seems there is a plus for DokuWiki. If nobody complains, this could be the choice.
Regards, Enrico
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:43:07 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:35:10 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 31/03/2011 19:43, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
[...]
Do you think this is something that could/should be hosted on the Geany website using MediaWiki, MoinMoin or similar software, or do you think it would be better to use a third party hosting like live.gnome.org or a similar service?
as already earlier said in this thread, I'd prefer to host it on geany.org accessible via wiki.geany.org.
Agreed, much better.
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
I haven't tested PMWiki yet (I know, shame on me), but I really like DokuWiki (at least the syntax is far better than e.g. MediaWiki's one IMHO).
Росен, thanks for the links. Two of them recommends DokuWiki over PMWiki for the purpose we are planning. And Colomban also seems to like DokuWiki.
So far, it seems there is a plus for DokuWiki. If nobody complains, this could be the choice.
Would be fine with it. Already got a DokuWiki running. Its not the best I can imagine but does its job ;)
Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
On Thursday 31 March 2011 01:43:52 pm Enrico Tröger wrote:
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
Any opinions?
Of course! ;-)
I'd recommend choosing a wiki which uses a markup language for which Geany can do syntax highlighting. I find it helpful to write my wiki pages in my own editor before transferring them to the wiki.
I prefer Foswiki / TWiki, but there is not a lexer for them in Geany / SciTE, yet. (I'm working on one, but no promises on completion.)
Randy Kramer
On 1 April 2011 11:07, Randy Kramer rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 31 March 2011 01:43:52 pm Enrico Tröger wrote:
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
Any opinions?
Of course! ;-)
I'd recommend choosing a wiki which uses a markup language for which Geany can do syntax highlighting. I find it helpful to write my wiki pages in my own editor before transferring them to the wiki.
I prefer Foswiki / TWiki, but there is not a lexer for them in Geany / SciTE, yet. (I'm working on one, but no promises on completion.)
Randy Kramer
While I agree that it would be great if wiki contributions could be written in Geany but I don't think that should limit our wiki selection.
+1 for Dokuwiki.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 10:40:30 +1000, Russell wrote:
On 1 April 2011 11:07, Randy Kramer rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 31 March 2011 01:43:52 pm Enrico Tröger wrote:
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
Any opinions?
Of course! ;-)
I'd recommend choosing a wiki which uses a markup language for which Geany can do syntax highlighting. I find it helpful to write my wiki pages in my own editor before transferring them to the wiki.
I prefer Foswiki / TWiki, but there is not a lexer for them in Geany / SciTE, yet. (I'm working on one, but no promises on completion.)
Randy Kramer
While I agree that it would be great if wiki contributions could be written in Geany but I don't think that should limit our wiki selection.
There is a MarkDown plugin for DokuWiki which seems to work quite ok (just tested it on a test instance) and there is also a not yet released RestructuredText plugin[1]. I contacted the author already asking him whether he would release it as we could use it.
Geany supports both, MarkDown and RestructuredText. I personally hope the RestructuredText plugin will appear and be useful, as I know ReST better than MarkDown or any Wiki syntax and because we use ReST as well for Geany's documentation.
+1 for Dokuwiki.
Nice.
[1] http://www.freelists.org/post/dokuwiki/Howwhere-does-dokuwiki-handle-file-su...
Regards, Enrico
Am Samstag, den 02.04.2011, 16:01 +0200 schrieb Enrico Tröger:
Geany supports both, MarkDown and RestructuredText. I personally hope the RestructuredText plugin will appear and be useful, as I know ReST better than MarkDown or any Wiki syntax and because we use ReST as well for Geany's documentation.
I second this.
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 16:01:05 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 10:40:30 +1000, Russell wrote:
On 1 April 2011 11:07, Randy Kramer rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 31 March 2011 01:43:52 pm Enrico Tröger wrote:
The question about the Wiki software to use is still unanswered if I didn't miss anything.
I personally still would prefer DokuWiki or PMWiki.
Any opinions?
Of course! ;-)
I'd recommend choosing a wiki which uses a markup language for which Geany can do syntax highlighting. I find it helpful to write my wiki pages in my own editor before transferring them to the wiki.
I prefer Foswiki / TWiki, but there is not a lexer for them in Geany / SciTE, yet. (I'm working on one, but no promises on completion.)
Randy Kramer
While I agree that it would be great if wiki contributions could be written in Geany but I don't think that should limit our wiki selection.
There is a MarkDown plugin for DokuWiki which seems to work quite ok (just tested it on a test instance) and there is also a not yet released RestructuredText plugin[1]. I contacted the author already asking him whether he would release it as we could use it.
Geany supports both, MarkDown and RestructuredText. I personally hope the RestructuredText plugin will appear and be useful, as I know ReST better than MarkDown or any Wiki syntax and because we use ReST as well for Geany's documentation.
I don't care much about which syntax the wiki markup is using. The default DokuWiki syntax is fine for me as I already use a bunch of instance of this piece of software.
+1 for Dokuwiki.
So when will be the going live? ;)
Cheers, Frank
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote:
There is a MarkDown plugin for DokuWiki which seems to work quite ok (just tested it on a test instance) and there is also a not yet released RestructuredText plugin[1]. I contacted the author already asking him whether he would release it as we could use it.
I got the plugin from the author and tested it, works fine, see below.
Geany supports both, MarkDown and RestructuredText. I personally hope the RestructuredText plugin will appear and be useful, as I know ReST better than MarkDown or any Wiki syntax and because we use ReST as well for Geany's documentation.
I don't care much about which syntax the wiki markup is using. The default DokuWiki syntax is fine for me as I already use a bunch of instance of this piece of software.
+1 for Dokuwiki.
So when will be the going live? ;)
Once we made a decision about the wiki software to use.
I set up a test instance of DokuWiki for me personal and tested the MarkDown and the reStructuredText plugins. Both work fine, so we even would have two markup lamguages for the Wiki which are supported by Geany.
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
Regards, Enrico
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:56:05 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
Nope. I just want to start using it ;)
Cheers, Frank
Le 03/04/2011 14:56, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote: [...]
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
I don't know MarkDown (well, never used it, I saw some files using it), but I'd be fine with ReST. Would this format(s) be the only one(s) available or would it be optional? I don't think having pages in 2 different formats is a good idea, but if it's transparent (e.g. we can edit any page using the one we prefer) I second this :)
Cheers, Colomban
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:02:07 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 14:56, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote: [...]
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
I don't know MarkDown (well, never used it, I saw some files using it), but I'd be fine with ReST. Would this format(s) be the only one(s) available or would it be optional? I don't think having pages in 2 different formats is a good idea, but if it's transparent (e.g. we can edit any page using the one we prefer) I second this :)
Nah, one page has one format. If a page is written in ReST you can't edit in MarkDown syntax or DokuWiki's syntax and vice versa.
I agree that if pages are written in different markup languages this is quite confusing. We could maybe say: everything has to be written in reStructuredText.
Though in some cases it might better to use DokuWiki's syntax instead of reStructuredText. One example might be to show some code examples which can DokuWiki highlight out of the box, e.g.
<code C> int my_fancy_function(char arg1) { /* I do very fancy things */ int a =0; int b = a;
return b; } </code>
In reStructuredText this isn't possible, without manually patching, AFAIK. There you have only a block with the code.
So, in the end, I personally, would say we allow both syntax variants, accepting that it is a bit confusing. The good thing is, you quickly see what syntax a page is in when you are editing it because all reStructuredText pages are enclosed by <rst> tags.
Regards, Enrico
Le 03/04/2011 15:29, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:02:07 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 14:56, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote: [...]
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
I don't know MarkDown (well, never used it, I saw some files using it), but I'd be fine with ReST. Would this format(s) be the only one(s) available or would it be optional? I don't think having pages in 2 different formats is a good idea, but if it's transparent (e.g. we can edit any page using the one we prefer) I second this :)
Nah, one page has one format. If a page is written in ReST you can't edit in MarkDown syntax or DokuWiki's syntax and vice versa.
I agree that if pages are written in different markup languages this is quite confusing. We could maybe say: everything has to be written in reStructuredText.
Though in some cases it might better to use DokuWiki's syntax instead of reStructuredText. One example might be to show some code examples which can DokuWiki highlight out of the box, e.g.
[...]
In reStructuredText this isn't possible, without manually patching, AFAIK. There you have only a block with the code.
So, in the end, I personally, would say we allow both syntax variants, accepting that it is a bit confusing. The good thing is, you quickly see what syntax a page is in when you are editing it because all reStructuredText pages are enclosed by<rst> tags.
I'm afraid having more than one formatting may be really problematic for contributions (e.g. the goal of a Wiki). Moreover, what if somebody wants to add something unsupported by reST in a reST page? Hum, that's problematic :D
Maybe we could just give all this a try and see what happens. If we see there is a real problem, it'd be tedious to convert back to something else but it's totally doable (and helped by a script should be quite fast... programmers or not :D).
Not sure, but I have no better idea (apart sticking with DokuWiki syntax, but I also understand the point of using the same thing that we generally use with Geany)...
My 1,5¢ Colomban
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:29:33 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:02:07 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 14:56, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote: [...]
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
I don't know MarkDown (well, never used it, I saw some files using it), but I'd be fine with ReST. Would this format(s) be the only one(s) available or would it be optional? I don't think having pages in 2 different formats is a good idea, but if it's transparent (e.g. we can edit any page using the one we prefer) I second this :)
Nah, one page has one format. If a page is written in ReST you can't edit in MarkDown syntax or DokuWiki's syntax and vice versa.
I agree that if pages are written in different markup languages this is quite confusing. We could maybe say: everything has to be written in reStructuredText.
Though in some cases it might better to use DokuWiki's syntax instead of reStructuredText. One example might be to show some code examples which can DokuWiki highlight out of the box, e.g.
<code C> int my_fancy_function(char arg1) { /* I do very fancy things */ int a =0; int b = a;
return b; }
</code>
In reStructuredText this isn't possible, without manually patching, AFAIK. There you have only a block with the code.
So, in the end, I personally, would say we allow both syntax variants, accepting that it is a bit confusing. The good thing is, you quickly see what syntax a page is in when you are editing it because all reStructuredText pages are enclosed by <rst> tags.
Through away the rst stuff and use DokuWiki syntax. Simple, fast and consistent solution for the wiki.
Cheers, Frank
Le 03/04/2011 16:39, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:29:33 +0200 Enrico Trögerenrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:02:07 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 14:56, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote: [...]
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
I don't know MarkDown (well, never used it, I saw some files using it), but I'd be fine with ReST. Would this format(s) be the only one(s) available or would it be optional? I don't think having pages in 2 different formats is a good idea, but if it's transparent (e.g. we can edit any page using the one we prefer) I second this :)
Nah, one page has one format. If a page is written in ReST you can't edit in MarkDown syntax or DokuWiki's syntax and vice versa.
I agree that if pages are written in different markup languages this is quite confusing. We could maybe say: everything has to be written in reStructuredText.
Though in some cases it might better to use DokuWiki's syntax instead of reStructuredText. One example might be to show some code examples which can DokuWiki highlight out of the box, e.g.
<code C> int my_fancy_function(char arg1) { /* I do very fancy things */ int a =0; int b = a;
return b;}
</code>
In reStructuredText this isn't possible, without manually patching, AFAIK. There you have only a block with the code.
So, in the end, I personally, would say we allow both syntax variants, accepting that it is a bit confusing. The good thing is, you quickly see what syntax a page is in when you are editing it because all reStructuredText pages are enclosed by <rst> tags.
Through away the rst stuff and use DokuWiki syntax. Simple, fast and consistent solution for the wiki.
Yeah, if it's not a problem for some users not to use the same thing than Geany use for it's own doc (why Wiki user would even know? :D) I think it's definitely cleaner.
Cheers, Colomban
Through away the rst stuff and use DokuWiki syntax. Simple, fast and consistent solution for the wiki.
Yeah, if it's not a problem for some users not to use the same thing than Geany use for it's own doc (why Wiki user would even know? :D) I think it's definitely cleaner.
Agree, use wiki markup for wiki, document markup for document, don't use a screwdriver as a hammer, even if it might work some of the time :-)
Cheers Lex
On 04/03/11 17:10, Lex Trotman wrote:
Through away the rst stuff and use DokuWiki syntax. Simple, fast and consistent solution for the wiki.
Yeah, if it's not a problem for some users not to use the same thing than Geany use for it's own doc (why Wiki user would even know? :D) I think it's definitely cleaner.
Agree, use wiki markup for wiki, document markup for document, don't use a screwdriver as a hammer, even if it might work some of the time :-)
+1
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Am Sonntag, den 03.04.2011, 14:56 +0200 schrieb Enrico Tröger:
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
Go ahead and don't hesitate that long. :)
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:21:35 +0100, Frank wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 04:59, schrieb Matthew Brush:
Does Geany have a wiki somewhere which users and developers can edit with tutorials, examples, links, screenshots and so on? I looked around a bit and I couldn't find one. I notice that the main website is a Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
No. The normal pages at geany.org are not editable by general ppl at the moment. I hardly recommend to keep it like this as these are the 'official' pages.
I think it would be a good idea. I'm curious what others think.
A nice idea to have such thing.
+1.
Strange that nobody else (especially including me) didn't get this idea before :D.
This way we can slim the main website a bit and move some more or less exotic information into the wiki, like 'Building from source on Windows'. And while at it, we (I'm afraid me) should update these information...but this is off-topic.
So, I'm all for it.
Regards, Enrico
Am Montag, den 14.03.2011, 20:59 -0700 schrieb Matthew Brush:
but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
Except the wish list at http://www.geany.org/Support/PluginWishlist Maybe we could do this easy and just add some additional pages editable for the wide public?
Regards, Dominic
On 16 March 2011 09:49, Dominic Hopf dmaphy@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Montag, den 14.03.2011, 20:59 -0700 schrieb Matthew Brush:
but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
Except the wish list at http://www.geany.org/Support/PluginWishlist Maybe we could do this easy and just add some additional pages editable for the wide public?
I agree that this is a good idea, but, sigh, in these times is is likely that we will have to only allow registered users to edit due to the number of idiots who like defacing things.
Cheers Lex
Regards, Dominic
-- Dominic Hopf dmaphy@googlemail.com http://dominichopf.de/
Key Fingerprint: A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On 03/15/11 15:49, Dominic Hopf wrote:
Am Montag, den 14.03.2011, 20:59 -0700 schrieb Matthew Brush:
but it doesn't seem to be editable by regular users (for good reason).
Except the wish list at http://www.geany.org/Support/PluginWishlist
It seems to be non-editable and instead (wisely) points to the Feature tracker on SourceForge.
Maybe we could do this easy and just add some additional pages editable for the wide public?
I think it would be nice for users to be able to add pages, but I don't know if it's a critical feature.
I personally have no strong opinion on which software it uses, as long as you can freely create a user account, like the mailing list, but maybe require CAPTCHA), and edit the pages to keep them up to date, add new content, remove spam, etc.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Regards, Enrico
Am 08.05.2011 18:41, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Looking forward to ;)
Cheers, Frank
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha. For now, if you want an account to write, drop me a short mail with your desired username via private mail and I'll setup it up instantly. So we hopefully can quickly play with it around and tune it to our needs.
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
Regards, Enrico
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:51:44 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha.
I changed it a bit: everyone can register but has limited access until the registration is approved. I still think we could use a captcha for the registration, need to check whether there is a proper plugin.
Regards, Enrico
On 05/16/11 15:04, Enrico Tröger wrote:
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha.
I changed it a bit: everyone can register but has limited access until the registration is approved. I still think we could use a captcha for the registration, need to check whether there is a proper plugin.
Looks good! Now it just needs to be opened up so people can edit pages and stuff.
It looks like there's at least two captcha plugins[1][2].
Thanks, Matthew Brush
[1] http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:recaptcha [2] http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:captcha
On Mon, 16 May 2011 18:08:46 -0700, Matthew wrote:
On 05/16/11 15:04, Enrico Tröger wrote:
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha.
I changed it a bit: everyone can register but has limited access until the registration is approved. I still think we could use a captcha for the registration, need to check whether there is a proper plugin.
Looks good! Now it just needs to be opened up so people can edit pages and stuff.
It looks like there's at least two captcha plugins[1][2].
Thanks, I installed the captcha plugin [2] which seems to work just fine.
Regards, Enrico
Am 17.05.2011 00:04, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:51:44 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha.
I changed it a bit: everyone can register but has limited access until the registration is approved.
Cool, its working. Thanks ;)
Cheers, Frank
Am 16.05.2011 23:51, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
I'd like to have a plugin to tag pages as e.g. http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:tag is one to.
Cheers, Frank
On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:41:32 +0200, Frank wrote:
Am 16.05.2011 23:51, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
I'd like to have a plugin to tag pages as e.g. http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:tag is one to.
Installed.
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 17 May 2011 22:43:30 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:41:32 +0200, Frank wrote:
Am 16.05.2011 23:51, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
I'd like to have a plugin to tag pages as e.g. http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:tag is one to.
Installed.
Thanks very much: In addition topic would be very cool ;) (Sorry, I forgot to mention before)
Cheers, Frank
On Tue, 17 May 2011 23:23:04 +0200, Frank wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 22:43:30 +0200 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:41:32 +0200, Frank wrote:
Am 16.05.2011 23:51, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
I'd like to have a plugin to tag pages as e.g. http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:tag is one to.
Installed.
Thanks very much: In addition topic would be very cool ;) (Sorry, I forgot to mention before)
Installed the pagelist plugin (which is what you meant as you said on IRC :D).
Regards, Enrico
Le 16/05/2011 23:51, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
Hey, good job Enrico, thanks!
Cheers, Colomban
I have never contributed to a wiki before, but I would love to do so. I use geany for R statistics on both windows and linux and have done some things to integrate geany, R, and console2 (windows terminal emulator) on windows. What is the proper procedure for material/guide submission?
Thanks and HTH, Jon
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 16/05/2011 23:51, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
Hey, good job Enrico, thanks!
Cheers, Colomban _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Am 17.05.2011 14:05, schrieb Jonathan Daily:
I have never contributed to a wiki before, but I would love to do so. I use geany for R statistics on both windows and linux and have done some things to integrate geany, R, and console2 (windows terminal emulator) on windows. What is the proper procedure for material/guide submission?
I think register an account on Wiki as step 0. ;) What do you like to contribute?
Cheers, Frank
I wrote an AutoHotKey script to pass text from the geany window to either an active Rterm or the active tab of console2. I also wrote an R script to dump functions into a space separated text file to facilitate text highlighting for packages that I use all the time. And finally, I wrote some snippets for R specific constructs.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 17.05.2011 14:05, schrieb Jonathan Daily:
I have never contributed to a wiki before, but I would love to do so. I use geany for R statistics on both windows and linux and have done some things to integrate geany, R, and console2 (windows terminal emulator) on windows. What is the proper procedure for material/guide submission?
I think register an account on Wiki as step 0. ;) What do you like to contribute?
Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:34:47 -0400, Jonathan wrote:
I wrote an AutoHotKey script to pass text from the geany window to either an active Rterm or the active tab of console2. I also wrote an R script to dump functions into a space separated text file to facilitate text highlighting for packages that I use all the time. And finally, I wrote some snippets for R specific constructs.
Great.
As Frank said, just register an account, shortly wait for approval and then start adding a Wiki page with your tips and tricks.
I'm not yet sure about the overall structure of the contents in the wiki, this we still need to work out. But you can of course create a page with content already if you like.
Regards, Enrico
2011/5/18 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:34:47 -0400, Jonathan wrote:
I wrote an AutoHotKey script to pass text from the geany window to either an active Rterm or the active tab of console2. I also wrote an R script to dump functions into a space separated text file to facilitate text highlighting for packages that I use all the time. And finally, I wrote some snippets for R specific constructs.
Great.
As Frank said, just register an account, shortly wait for approval and then start adding a Wiki page with your tips and tricks.
I'm not yet sure about the overall structure of the contents in the wiki, this we still need to work out. But you can of course create a page with content already if you like.
Regards, Enrico
Enrico,
Others have already said it but thanks for getting the wiki installed. Now we just need to make it look nice! :P
In case it helps anyone, look at http://caladbolg.net/textadeptwiki/ for an example of content that might be useful to contain in the Geany wiki. This link is to the Textadept wiki, where Textadept is another excellent cross-platform text editor but with a different design and different goasl to Geany.
Yay!
Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
I'm not yet sure about the overall structure of the contents in the wiki, this we still need to work out. But you can of course create a page with content already if you like.
If a basic structure can be defined, it will make it easier to work out where to go from there. I'm eager to drop in the odd bit, as are most posters here, but I reckon a structure will help guide us somewhat.
Russell Dickenson wrote:
In case it helps anyone, look at http://caladbolg.net/textadeptwiki/ for an example of content that might be useful to contain in the Geany wiki. This link is to the Textadept wiki, where Textadept is another excellent cross-platform text editor but with a different design and different goasl to Geany.
Looks like a good base to work from.
On Wed, 18 May 2011 09:34:46 +1000, Ross wrote:
Yay!
Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
I'm not yet sure about the overall structure of the contents in the wiki, this we still need to work out. But you can of course create a page with content already if you like.
If a basic structure can be defined, it will make it easier to work out where to go from there. I'm eager to drop in the odd bit, as are most posters here, but I reckon a structure will help guide us somewhat.
Completely agree. I think once we have a basic structure content will follow more easy, i.e. contributors will start to put information in.
I thought of something like a few basic categories, in DokuWiki speech: namespaces. Maybe something like the following:
Howtos Tips & Tricks Snippets Filetype Specifics Themes / Colors
And then fill these categories with sub-pages with actual content. Additionally, we need a nice index page to get an overview but without being too bloated.
Regards, Enrico
2011/5/19 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Wed, 18 May 2011 09:34:46 +1000, Ross wrote:
Yay!
Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
I'm not yet sure about the overall structure of the contents in the wiki, this we still need to work out. But you can of course create a page with content already if you like.
If a basic structure can be defined, it will make it easier to work out where to go from there. I'm eager to drop in the odd bit, as are most posters here, but I reckon a structure will help guide us somewhat.
Completely agree. I think once we have a basic structure content will follow more easy, i.e. contributors will start to put information in.
I thought of something like a few basic categories, in DokuWiki speech: namespaces. Maybe something like the following:
Howtos Tips & Tricks Snippets Filetype Specifics Themes / Colors
And then fill these categories with sub-pages with actual content. Additionally, we need a nice index page to get an overview but without being too bloated.
Regards, Enrico
Enrico,
I think you're suggested structure sounds good. It's provides enough structure to what would otherwise be a jumble of content but is simple enough to maintain.
On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:34:47 -0400 Jonathan Daily biomathjdaily@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote an AutoHotKey script to pass text from the geany window to either an active Rterm or the active tab of console2. I also wrote an R script to dump functions into a space separated text file to facilitate text highlighting for packages that I use all the time.
Not sure wheter this content is the wiki the correct place for -- may some other decide.
And finally, I wrote some snippets for R specific constructs.
I suggest a space for snippets ... something like snippets:<filetype>
Cheers, Frank
On Tue, 17 May 2011 13:53:42 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 16/05/2011 23:51, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
Hey, good job Enrico, thanks!
Not yet, didn't do really more than installing it :).
Regards, Enrico
2011/5/17 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha. For now, if you want an account to write, drop me a short mail with your desired username via private mail and I'll setup it up instantly. So we hopefully can quickly play with it around and tune it to our needs.
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
Regards, Enrico
Regarding the template for the wiki, I just browsed the gallery of Dokuwiki templates and quite like this one: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template%3Avector. It's very similar to the default template but looks a little smoother.
On Wed, 18 May 2011 06:59:29 +1000, Russell wrote:
2011/5/17 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha. For now, if you want an account to write, drop me a short mail with your desired username via private mail and I'll setup it up instantly. So we hopefully can quickly play with it around and tune it to our needs.
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
Regards, Enrico
Regarding the template for the wiki, I just browsed the gallery of Dokuwiki templates and quite like this one: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template%3Avector. It's very similar to the default template but looks a little smoother.
I think it looks quite like MediaWiki but I don't mind. No objections here.
I don't mind much about the template at all in general, I just would like to have something nice, the default DokuWiki theme is not so nice, IMHO.
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 17 May 2011 23:12:38 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011 06:59:29 +1000, Russell wrote:
2011/5/17 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha. For now, if you want an account to write, drop me a short mail with your desired username via private mail and I'll setup it up instantly. So we hopefully can quickly play with it around and tune it to our needs.
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
Regards, Enrico
Regarding the template for the wiki, I just browsed the gallery of Dokuwiki templates and quite like this one: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template%3Avector. It's very similar to the default template but looks a little smoother.
I think it looks quite like MediaWiki but I don't mind. No objections here.
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
Unfortunately, the author of the Arctic template won't maintain it anymore in the future but since it seems to be widely on the net, maybe someone else will continue maintaining it. I like that it has a sidebar which is quite flexible. At the moment, I just put a simple list of the categories in it as a simple navigation. Though we could change it later.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
[1] http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:arctic
Regards, Enrico
2011/5/30 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 23:12:38 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011 06:59:29 +1000, Russell wrote:
2011/5/17 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha. For now, if you want an account to write, drop me a short mail with your desired username via private mail and I'll setup it up instantly. So we hopefully can quickly play with it around and tune it to our needs.
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
Regards, Enrico
Regarding the template for the wiki, I just browsed the gallery of Dokuwiki templates and quite like this one: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template%3Avector. It's very similar to the default template but looks a little smoother.
I think it looks quite like MediaWiki but I don't mind. No objections here.
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
Unfortunately, the author of the Arctic template won't maintain it anymore in the future but since it seems to be widely on the net, maybe someone else will continue maintaining it. I like that it has a sidebar which is quite flexible. At the moment, I just put a simple list of the categories in it as a simple navigation. Though we could change it later.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
[1] http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:arctic
Regards, Enrico
Between the two my preference would be for Vector but based on its appearance. If the Arctic template is no longer maintained we may get into problems with browser compatibility between it and this may distract us from the wiki itself. Aside from that though, I don't mind.
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
Unfortunately, the author of the Arctic template won't maintain it anymore in the future but since it seems to be widely on the net, maybe someone else will continue maintaining it. I like that it has a sidebar which is quite flexible. At the moment, I just put a simple list of the categories in it as a simple navigation. Though we could change it later.
Yes, organisation is better and sidebar is better. Don't like it being unmaintained though. The docuwiki template library seems to list a version that templates are compatible with, does this mean that templates have to be updated each time docuwiki is upgraded?
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
Looks suspiciously like the Geany website, thats why you like it? :-D
Did you find any template that limits the max-width?
Cheers Lex
On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:35:26 +1000, Lex wrote:
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
Unfortunately, the author of the Arctic template won't maintain it anymore in the future but since it seems to be widely on the net, maybe someone else will continue maintaining it. I like that it has a sidebar which is quite flexible. At the moment, I just put a simple list of the categories in it as a simple navigation. Though we could change it later.
Yes, organisation is better and sidebar is better. Don't like it being unmaintained though. The docuwiki template library seems to list a version that templates are compatible with, does this mean that templates have to be updated each time docuwiki is upgraded?
I don't think so. Probably it's more a hint like ' this template has been tested with this version of DokuWiki'. But this is just a guess. The Arctic and Doogie (see below) templates are both officially *not* supported by the latest DokuWiki release which we are using, still I couldn't find anything broken. Still, using a maintained and support template is better.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
Looks suspiciously like the Geany website, thats why you like it? :-D
Hehe, probably. Didn't chose it intentially because of this but maybe unconsciously.
Did you find any template that limits the max-width?
The only one I found and which looks okish is: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:doogie
It's currently running on our wiki. It feels more like a blog layout than a wiki but maybe this is jjust because of the top navigation buttons instead of a sidebar. Is this better? The actual width of the page can surely be changed easily via CSS.
Alternatively, maybe Росен wants/can to spend some time to make a new fancy template for our needs, the Geany DokuWiki template :).
Regards, Enrico
Did you find any template that limits the max-width?
The only one I found and which looks okish is: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:doogie
It's currently running on our wiki. It feels more like a blog layout than a wiki but maybe this is jjust because of the top navigation buttons instead of a sidebar. Is this better? The actual width of the page can surely be changed easily via CSS.
Ah, I missed that one. Only thing missing seems to be sitemap when not logged in, the only way of finding the newsletter stuff is via its tag (or search).
I have converted the build system guide to docuwiki (sigh, just as annoying as I expected) but haven't had time to make the images yet. I added it with a howto tag and build and configure tags.
Which raises the question, how much consistency do we want in tags and how to control it?
Cheers Lex
On 11-05-30 05:56 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
I have converted the build system guide to docuwiki (sigh, just as annoying as I expected) but haven't had time to make the images yet. I added it with a howto tag and build and configure tags.
Which raises the question, how much consistency do we want in tags and how to control it?
I guess if they were just tags, then just using regular tags related to the topic would be good, but since there's some arbitrary link between tags and the page navigation (haven't figured it out yet), maybe it needs to be consistent?
Also, is there a better way for navigation than tags or however it works now? I found it very unintuitive to get a page listed in whatever the navigation part is using. Maybe there's a plugin that does a TOC (besides sitemap) based on links or something.
P.S. please ignore me if I'm just stupid :)
Cheers, Matthew Brush
I guess if they were just tags, then just using regular tags related to the topic would be good, but since there's some arbitrary link between tags and the page navigation (haven't figured it out yet), maybe it needs to be consistent?
IIUC (which may not be the case :-) the navigation stuff (shown as tabs on the current template) comes from namespaces, ie pages with names foo:bar:thepage name. This is a docuwiki builtin.
Summary pages like howtos and snippets use the respective tags and a plugin to generate the pages. This plugin also generates the tagcloud on the front page. Add tags by {{tag>space separated list of tags}} which will tag the page with space, separated, list, of and tags :-)
Also, is there a better way for navigation than tags or however it works now? I found it very unintuitive to get a page listed in whatever the navigation part is using. Maybe there's a plugin that does a TOC (besides sitemap) based on links or something.
Maybe you just need to try again with this new info (assuming I'm right?)
Cheers Lex
One thing that I did notice with the WIki is that playground seems to be readonly, even if logged in ??
Cheers Lex
On Tue, 31 May 2011 12:55:52 +1000, Lex wrote:
One thing that I did notice with the WIki is that playground seems to be readonly, even if logged in ??
Still? I forgot to set the ACL to make it editable, now it should do. However, according to ACLs I set, it should be editable even by not logged in users but it doesn't work. But this might be another issue, I'll look later this week into this.
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 31 May 2011 12:48:40 +1000, Lex wrote:
I guess if they were just tags, then just using regular tags related to the topic would be good, but since there's some arbitrary link between tags and the page navigation (haven't figured it out yet), maybe it needs to be consistent?
IIUC (which may not be the case :-) the navigation stuff (shown as tabs on the current template) comes from namespaces, ie pages with names foo:bar:thepage name. This is a docuwiki builtin.
Summary pages like howtos and snippets use the respective tags and a plugin to generate the pages. This plugin also generates the tagcloud
Correct. Currently, the howtos index page is just a generated list based on the tags of the subpages. I don't think this is the best approach, more than a curious test how it works :). Probably it's best to write normal index pages by hand or look for a plugin which generates a proper index for a subnamespace. Again, the tag based index page isn't really good in general, I think.
Also, is there a better way for navigation than tags or however it works now? I found it very unintuitive to get a page listed in whatever the navigation part is using. Maybe there's a plugin that does a TOC (besides sitemap) based on links or something.
See above. I agree on not using the tag stuff for index pages.
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:56:20 +1000, Lex wrote:
Did you find any template that limits the max-width?
The only one I found and which looks okish is: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:doogie
It's currently running on our wiki. It feels more like a blog layout than a wiki but maybe this is jjust because of the top navigation buttons instead of a sidebar. Is this better? The actual width of the page can surely be changed easily via CSS.
Ah, I missed that one. Only thing missing seems to be sitemap when not logged in, the only way of finding the newsletter stuff is via its tag (or search).
I have converted the build system guide to docuwiki (sigh, just as annoying as I expected) but haven't had time to make the images yet. I added it with a howto tag and build and configure tags.
For a direct comparism, I pasted your text into another wiki to see how it looks with the Vector template:
https://tiwtr.uvena.de/wiki/playground
Regards, Enrico
2011/6/1 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:56:20 +1000, Lex wrote:
Did you find any template that limits the max-width?
The only one I found and which looks okish is: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:doogie
It's currently running on our wiki. It feels more like a blog layout than a wiki but maybe this is jjust because of the top navigation buttons instead of a sidebar. Is this better? The actual width of the page can surely be changed easily via CSS.
Ah, I missed that one. Only thing missing seems to be sitemap when not logged in, the only way of finding the newsletter stuff is via its tag (or search).
I have converted the build system guide to docuwiki (sigh, just as annoying as I expected) but haven't had time to make the images yet. I added it with a howto tag and build and configure tags.
For a direct comparism, I pasted your text into another wiki to see how it looks with the Vector template:
https://tiwtr.uvena.de/wiki/playground
Regards, Enrico
Between these two I much prefer the Vector template's layout because: (1) I think it looks cleaner and more professional; (2) useful links such as "Printable version" and the Search input box are clearly visible. The Doogie template has almost none of this, with the Search input box at the very bottom of the page.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 07:36:21 +1000, Russell wrote:
2011/6/1 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:56:20 +1000, Lex wrote:
Did you find any template that limits the max-width?
The only one I found and which looks okish is: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template:doogie
It's currently running on our wiki. It feels more like a blog layout than a wiki but maybe this is jjust because of the top navigation buttons instead of a sidebar. Is this better? The actual width of the page can surely be changed easily via CSS.
Ah, I missed that one. Only thing missing seems to be sitemap when not logged in, the only way of finding the newsletter stuff is via its tag (or search).
I have converted the build system guide to docuwiki (sigh, just as annoying as I expected) but haven't had time to make the images yet. I added it with a howto tag and build and configure tags.
For a direct comparism, I pasted your text into another wiki to see how it looks with the Vector template:
https://tiwtr.uvena.de/wiki/playground
Regards, Enrico
Between these two I much prefer the Vector template's layout because: (1) I think it looks cleaner and more professional; (2) useful links such as "Printable version" and the Search input box are clearly visible. The Doogie template has almost none of this, with the Search input box at the very bottom of the page.
Similar here. The Doogie template has the advantage of a fixed max-width which Lex wants. Basically, we could add the missing "meta links" to the Doogie template by hacking them into it. But this reduces maintenability of course.
However, I don't want to make the decision about which template to use, I'd just like to configure the one you chose :). For me, the content is more important and I just don't know not enough about web design and all the criteria about usability and accessibility and all these things.
Regards, Enrico
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:42:58 +0200, Enrico wrote:
One addition:
Between these two I much prefer the Vector template's layout because: (1) I think it looks cleaner and more professional; (2) useful links such as "Printable version" and the Search input box are clearly visible. The Doogie template has almost none of this, with the Search input box at the very bottom of the page.
(3) the top navigation tabs can only be changed/configured by editing a PHP file, it's not changeable in the wiki itself. The Vector template implements the sidebar as a normal wiki page and so it can be edited by anyone who is granted to (ACL) not only by the few guys who have access to the server's filesystem.
Regards, Enrico
2011/6/1 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:42:58 +0200, Enrico wrote:
One addition:
Between these two I much prefer the Vector template's layout because: (1) I think it looks cleaner and more professional; (2) useful links such as "Printable version" and the Search input box are clearly visible. The Doogie template has almost none of this, with the Search input box at the very bottom of the page.
(3) the top navigation tabs can only be changed/configured by editing a PHP file, it's not changeable in the wiki itself. The Vector template implements the sidebar as a normal wiki page and so it can be edited by anyone who is granted to (ACL) not only by the few guys who have access to the server's filesystem.
Regards, Enrico
Personally I'd consider this a big PLUS in favour of the Vector template. Requiring someone who might maintain the wiki's layout to have access to the web server's file system is surely a risk.
In short I really don't like the Doogie template because of the reasons I've mentioned above, also the fact that the colours used in the banner/header make it difficult to read, also too bold. The focus of a wiki should be its content, not a big banner at the top of the page that looks ugly (IMHO :) ).
For a direct comparism, I pasted your text into another wiki to see how it looks with the Vector template:
Now you've done it!!
On my monitor the lines are on average 30 words wide, way too much, way hard to read.
But it also pointed out a BIG problem with the dodgie er doogie template, its set the text to 90% of the users chosen font size. What a bunch of arrogant [complex scatological string of expletives deleted] the designers are, why can't they respect my font choice, how do they know what my monitor resolution is and how good my eyes are? Do they expect me to change the font choice every time I swap to their tab in the browser? </rant> I feel better now. :-)
In which case I also think vector is ok.
But we need to maybe tweek the css ourselves, at least to limit the width of heavily textual documents. (Just an aside, thats why the doogie template looks like a blog: because blogs are all text, the good ones limit the width so they can be read easily)
As I read the docuwiki manual it allows individual pages to have local templates, so I'm not saying that all pages need to have the width limited, just those that are mainly text.
Cheers Lex
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:28 +1000, Lex wrote:
For a direct comparism, I pasted your text into another wiki to see how it looks with the Vector template:
Now you've done it!!
On my monitor the lines are on average 30 words wide, way too much, way hard to read.
But it also pointed out a BIG problem with the dodgie er doogie template, its set the text to 90% of the users chosen font size. What a bunch of arrogant [complex scatological string of expletives deleted] the designers are, why can't they respect my font choice, how do they know what my monitor resolution is and how good my eyes are? Do they expect me to change the font choice every time I swap to their tab in the browser? </rant> I feel better now. :-)
/me hopes you'll never read CSS he wrote...
In which case I also think vector is ok.
Ok, so I switched back to the Vector template. I guess we could with this based on the feedback so far.
As I read the docuwiki manual it allows individual pages to have local templates, so I'm not saying that all pages need to have the width limited, just those that are mainly text.
Any reference?
Regards, Enrico
</rant> I feel better now. :-)
/me hopes you'll never read CSS he wrote...
Sadly I already did, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it might be program generated and the server squashed whitespace.
In which case I also think vector is ok.
Ok, so I switched back to the Vector template. I guess we could with this based on the feedback so far.
As I read the docuwiki manual it allows individual pages to have local templates, so I'm not saying that all pages need to have the width limited, just those that are mainly text.
Any reference?
I didn't read it fully did I, page templates can only have content, not style :-(
But the wrap plugin looks like it allows width to be set in the page markup, could you install it when you get a chance. (it also allows a number of other htmly things without the risks of allowing raw html)
Cheers Lex
Am 03.06.2011 03:37, schrieb Lex Trotman:
</rant> I feel better now. :-)
/me hopes you'll never read CSS he wrote...
Sadly I already did, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it might be program generated and the server squashed whitespace.
In which case I also think vector is ok.
Ok, so I switched back to the Vector template. I guess we could with this based on the feedback so far.
As I read the docuwiki manual it allows individual pages to have local templates, so I'm not saying that all pages need to have the width limited, just those that are mainly text.
Any reference?
I didn't read it fully did I, page templates can only have content, not style :-(
But the wrap plugin looks like it allows width to be set in the page markup, could you install it when you get a chance. (it also allows a number of other htmly things without the risks of allowing raw html)
Please dont't. I don't want to have every page looks different. If you really want to have fixed size, you can use e.g. a firefox plugin to have some local css for a namespace.
Cheers, Frank
Please dont't. I don't want to have every page looks different. If you really want to have fixed size, you can use e.g. a firefox plugin to have some local css for a namespace.
Its not me who is reading it, why do you want to make the wiki harder for users to read unless they have some firefox only plugin?
If you really are so emphatic that all pages must look exactly the same then limit the width for all pages, but I would rather sensibly consider what is most suitable for each page.
Cheers Lex
Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
Am 03.06.2011 09:38, schrieb Lex Trotman:
Please dont't. I don't want to have every page looks different. If you really want to have fixed size, you can use e.g. a firefox plugin to have some local css for a namespace.
Its not me who is reading it, why do you want to make the wiki harder for users to read unless they have some firefox only plugin?
All I want is to keep style/layout be splitted from content.
If you really are so emphatic that all pages must look exactly the same then limit the width for all pages, but I would rather sensibly consider what is most suitable for each page.
From a design view it would make sense to limit it for every page, but
done on a global css level. Using a little number of different templates might would also make sense. BUT: I'd like to avoid individual styles on each page as user's expectations will be some common look and feel on whole wiki.
However, will concentrate in content now :)
Cheers, Frank
From a design view it would make sense to limit it for every page, but done on a global css level. Using a little number of different templates might would also make sense. BUT: I'd like to avoid individual styles on each page as user's expectations will be some common look and feel on whole wiki.
Hi Frank,
To do it for all pages I think all Enrico has to do is create a conf/userstyle.css (see http://www.dokuwiki.org/devel:css#user_styles) containing body { max-width:40em}
I would agree that limiting styles to just a few defined templates would be good, thats what I originally wanted to do, but as the reply to Enrico pointed out, dokuwiki does not allow you to have different style templates for different parts of the site, the namespace templates can contain content only, thats why I was looking for alternate options that didn't open up the HTML risks.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on how permissive a wiki should be. My feeling is that the point of a wiki is to be open to a variety of contents so it should be more permissive rather than less, especially since as a community we haven't had much experience with what is better.
Contributors are registered, changes can be reverted and the Geany community is mostly trustworthy so why not see what happens rather than lock everything down at the first thing we thought of. Also if contributors can't see what different things look like then how are they to experiment with possible improvements to the style?
However, will concentrate in content now :)
I will also try to get the images in the build document this weekend, although the weather looks good and the boss has a long list of outside jobs, so we'll have to see ;-)
Cheers Lex
On 3 June 2011 19:27, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
Am 03.06.2011 10:56, schrieb Lex Trotman:
I will also try to get the images in the build document this weekend,
You could also send the to me via direct mail and I can do the upload if needed.
The problem is getting time when I have access to the right machine to take the screenshots, I hope Matthew has sorted out the uploading now :-). But otherwise will take up your offer, thanks.
Cheers Lex
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:56:19 +1000, Lex wrote:
From a design view it would make sense to limit it for every page, but done on a global css level. Using a little number of different templates might would also make sense. BUT: I'd like to avoid individual styles on each page as user's expectations will be some common look and feel on whole wiki.
Hi Frank,
To do it for all pages I think all Enrico has to do is create a conf/userstyle.css (see http://www.dokuwiki.org/devel:css#user_styles) containing body { max-width:40em}
Done so. But it looks weird, 40em is too few I'd say:
https://tiwtr.uvena.de/wiki/playground
I installed the wrap plugin anyway (in the Geany wiki). If you want, play around with it, even at the risk Frank will hate us :). Seriously, we could at least try what's possible and then decide whether we want this or not. In general, I share Frank's opinion of a common layout and style across the wiki however in this particular case I also see the benefit of a custom max-width for the page.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on how permissive a wiki should be. My feeling is that the point of a wiki is to be open to a variety of contents so it should be more permissive rather than less, especially since as a community we haven't had much experience with what is better.
Contributors are registered, changes can be reverted and the Geany community is mostly trustworthy so why not see what happens rather than lock everything down at the first thing we thought of. Also if contributors can't see what different things look like then how are they to experiment with possible improvements to the style?
I agree. New users now automaticallly get into the user group and so can edit, create and delete pages and upload files. For each change, I get a notification mail currently. Alternatively, everyone can subscribe to the wiki via RSS and so get also notified about changes.
Regards, Enrico
Done so. But it looks weird, 40em is too few I'd say:
Yes, the 40em seems to include the sidebar, so it would need to be wider.
I installed the wrap plugin anyway (in the Geany wiki). If you want, play around with it, even at the risk Frank will hate us :). Seriously, we could at least try what's possible and then decide whether we want this or not. In general, I share Frank's opinion of a common layout and style across the wiki however in this particular case I also see the benefit of a custom max-width for the page.
As an experiment I set the width to a reasonable number. I don't think it makes the page stand out as different.
The only problem is that acronyms break headings, I think because the plugin doesn't prevent the acronym substitution in headings that the normal docuwiki does.
The simple solution I have taken is to remove the acronyms (including Geany) in the headings but its something to note when adding new ones..
Cheers Lex
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 21:44:00 +1000, Lex wrote:
Done so. But it looks weird, 40em is too few I'd say:
Yes, the 40em seems to include the sidebar, so it would need to be wider.
I installed the wrap plugin anyway (in the Geany wiki). If you want, play around with it, even at the risk Frank will hate us :). Seriously, we could at least try what's possible and then decide whether we want this or not. In general, I share Frank's opinion of a common layout and style across the wiki however in this particular case I also see the benefit of a custom max-width for the page.
As an experiment I set the width to a reasonable number. I don't think it makes the page stand out as different.
Agree. I could live with it. I like the page as it is, Frank could you sleep well at night even if we keep it this way knowing that it breaks the basically good concept of keeping content and layout separated? :)
The only problem is that acronyms break headings, I think because the plugin doesn't prevent the acronym substitution in headings that the normal docuwiki does.
The simple solution I have taken is to remove the acronyms (including Geany) in the headings but its something to note when adding new ones..
Ok, I thought about having a page in the wiki with a few guidelines on how to write pages and hints and stuff. This would perfectly fit into. Just needs to be done, I'll try to do this sometime today.
Regards, Enrico
Enrico and all,
Is anyone else having trouble with preview when editing pages? Sometimes (and I can't determine when) when asking for a preview the sidebar overwrites the edit window and disables the save button. So I have had to do recent changes by saving and seeing what it looks like (sorry to spam you Enrico and anyone else subscribed for notifications).
This problem happens on playground as well as the build menu page but I don't think as often (document size?).
Using firefox 3.6.17.
Cheers Lex
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:07:08 +1000, Lex wrote:
Enrico and all,
Is anyone else having trouble with preview when editing pages? Sometimes (and I can't determine when) when asking for a preview the sidebar overwrites the edit window and disables the save button. So I have had to do recent changes by saving and seeing what it looks like (sorry to spam you Enrico and anyone else subscribed for notifications).
This problem happens on playground as well as the build menu page but I don't think as often (document size?).
Using firefox 3.6.17.
Tried with Midori (GIT master), some Chromium version from Debian Testing and Firefox 4.0. I couldn't reproduce it but that doesn't mean much.
The disabled save button comes from the little extra javascript I installed yesterday. I could remove it to check whether this is related? However, I can't imagine this javascript breaks the whole layout at preview.
Regards, Enrico
Using firefox 3.6.17.
Tried with Midori (GIT master), some Chromium version from Debian Testing and Firefox 4.0. I couldn't reproduce it but that doesn't mean much.
Not happening for me at the moment either, maybe its some thing to do with exactly what is in the content, maybe something strange I did, although I thought it happened on an unmodified playground, but maybe I had changed something.
The disabled save button comes from the little extra javascript I installed yesterday. I could remove it to check whether this is related? However, I can't imagine this javascript breaks the whole layout at preview.
Sorry to not be clear, the save button is not greyed out, but the the sidebar actually overwrites the left hand strip of the edit window and the save button. Attempting to click save selects the items in the sidebar menu not the save button. So I had to save before previewing or lose the changes. Thats probably not your javascript which is worthwhile to remind us to fill in the comment :-)
BTW I put the images in a howto:images: namespace rather than directly in howto.
Cheers Lex
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 19:16:37 +1000, Lex wrote:
Using firefox 3.6.17.
Tried with Midori (GIT master), some Chromium version from Debian Testing and Firefox 4.0. I couldn't reproduce it but that doesn't mean much.
Not happening for me at the moment either, maybe its some thing to do with exactly what is in the content, maybe something strange I did, although I thought it happened on an unmodified playground, but maybe I had changed something.
The disabled save button comes from the little extra javascript I installed yesterday. I could remove it to check whether this is related? However, I can't imagine this javascript breaks the whole layout at preview.
Sorry to not be clear, the save button is not greyed out, but the the sidebar actually overwrites the left hand strip of the edit window and the save button. Attempting to click save selects the items in the sidebar menu not the save button. So I had to save before previewing or lose the changes. Thats probably not your javascript which is worthwhile to remind us to fill in the comment :-)
Ok. Then I have no idea what could be wrong. If it happens again, maybe have a look in Firefox' error console (Tools->Error console) to check if there is anything interesting. But don't be surprised, there are usually lots of messages, also from other open tabs/windows and the Vector theme seems to produce quite some CSS warnings, maybe these are even related, no idea. I'm a CSS noob.
BTW I put the images in a howto:images: namespace rather than directly in howto.
Ok. I didn't think about how to handle images yet. Maybe a dedicated image namespace is useful or a image namespace per major namespace? Not sure yet.
Regards, Enrico
BTW I put the images in a howto:images: namespace rather than directly in howto.
Ok. I didn't think about how to handle images yet. Maybe a dedicated image namespace is useful or a image namespace per major namespace? Not sure yet.
Well I would suggest images split up to be near where they are used, easier to find, smaller numbers to manage, less filename clashes (wanna bet on how many menu.png files we could get :-)
Cheers Lex
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 23:19:03 +1000, Lex wrote:
BTW I put the images in a howto:images: namespace rather than directly in howto.
Ok. I didn't think about how to handle images yet. Maybe a dedicated image namespace is useful or a image namespace per major namespace? Not sure yet.
Well I would suggest images split up to be near where they are used, easier to find, smaller numbers to manage, less filename clashes (wanna bet on how many menu.png files we could get :-)
Sounds sensible. I'll add this to the guidelines these day unless anybody else if faster :).
Regards, Enrico
On 06/03/11 00:38, Lex Trotman wrote:
Please dont't. I don't want to have every page looks different. If you really want to have fixed size, you can use e.g. a firefox plugin to have some local css for a namespace.
+1
Its not me who is reading it, why do you want to make the wiki harder for users to read unless they have some firefox only plugin?
If you really are so emphatic that all pages must look exactly the same then limit the width for all pages, but I would rather sensibly consider what is most suitable for each page.
Naw, it's bad enough having some pages not take up the full available screen space let alone all of them. Wasn't it you in the "A new look" thread who was quite strongly against wasting your resolution by using a fixed width? IMHO, having one page not fill the available screen space is weird.
I guess I can just use the wiki with the Firefox page styles turned off, but it looks really plain like this.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
I have a custom filetype for the sage [1] mathematics language, conveniently built on python, that I was hoping to put into the wiki. Would this be something that should go into the wiki, and if so, where?
Thanks
[1] http://www.sagemath.org/index.html
On 4 June 2011 05:29, Jonathan Daily biomathjdaily@gmail.com wrote:
I have a custom filetype for the sage [1] mathematics language, conveniently built on python, that I was hoping to put into the wiki. Would this be something that should go into the wiki, and if so, where?
Hi Jonathan,
That sounds like a good addition.
I'm not sure where it fits in the current arrangement. Perhaps we need a general configuration section. I don't think we will get enough custom filetypes to justify a section just on that.
WHat do others think?
Cheers Lex
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:59:17 +1000, Lex wrote:
On 4 June 2011 05:29, Jonathan Daily biomathjdaily@gmail.com wrote:
I have a custom filetype for the sage [1] mathematics language, conveniently built on python, that I was hoping to put into the wiki. Would this be something that should go into the wiki, and if so, where?
Hi Jonathan,
That sounds like a good addition.
+1
I'm not sure where it fits in the current arrangement. Perhaps we need a general configuration section. I don't think we will get enough custom filetypes to justify a section just on that.
I'd suggest a filetype section where filetype-specific information are put in. Though not completely sure, maybe Lex' suggestion of a general config section is better.
Regards, Enrico
I think a general config section would be useful. I'll +1 this idea.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2011 05:29, Jonathan Daily biomathjdaily@gmail.com wrote:
I have a custom filetype for the sage [1] mathematics language, conveniently built on python, that I was hoping to put into the wiki. Would this be something that should go into the wiki, and if so, where?
Hi Jonathan,
That sounds like a good addition.
I'm not sure where it fits in the current arrangement. Perhaps we need a general configuration section. I don't think we will get enough custom filetypes to justify a section just on that.
WHat do others think?
Cheers Lex _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:05:57 -0400, Jonathan wrote:
I think a general config section would be useful. I'll +1 this idea.
So, go ahead! :)
Regards, Enrico
Naw, it's bad enough having some pages not take up the full available screen space let alone all of them. Wasn't it you in the "A new look" thread who was quite strongly against wasting your resolution by using a fixed width? IMHO, having one page not fill the available screen space is weird.
Hi Matthew,
Nice try at using my previous posts against me :-) but...
But you will find I was arguing against a fixed size in pixels.
But you will find I also pointed out that large blocks of text should not exceed a reasonable length which is a size in characters, ie em. To re-quote the w3c guidelines, blocks of text in web pages should be:
1.4.8 Visual Presentation: For the visual presentation of blocks of text, a mechanism is available to achieve the following: (Level AAA)
1. Foreground and background colors can be selected by the user.
2. Width is no more than 80 characters or glyphs (40 if CJK).
3. Text is not justified (aligned to both the left and the right margins).
4. Line spacing (leading) is at least space-and-a-half within paragraphs, and paragraph spacing is at least 1.5 times larger than the line spacing.
5. Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text on a full-screen window.
I guess I can just use the wiki with the Firefox page styles turned off, but it looks really plain like this.
Comments about babies and bathwater come to mind :-)
Cheers Lex
On 05/29/11 15:40, Enrico Tröger wrote:
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
It's nicer than the default for sure.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
Vector, Monobook or any of the other ones that look like MediaWiki are nice since they have more familiar layouts and appearances to people used to the most common wikis like Wikipedia.
My $0.02
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On Sun, 29 May 2011 19:01:52 -0700, Matthew wrote:
On 05/29/11 15:40, Enrico Tröger wrote:
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
It's nicer than the default for sure.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
Vector, Monobook or any of the other ones that look like MediaWiki are nice since they have more familiar layouts and appearances to people used to the most common wikis like Wikipedia.
Quite a good point. I changed to the Vector template today just in case anyone wondered. Now I changed to the Doogie template for testing, see my other mail.
Regards, Enrico
On 11-05-30 03:26 PM, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 19:01:52 -0700, Matthew wrote:
On 05/29/11 15:40, Enrico Tröger wrote:
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
It's nicer than the default for sure.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
Vector, Monobook or any of the other ones that look like MediaWiki are nice since they have more familiar layouts and appearances to people used to the most common wikis like Wikipedia.
Quite a good point. I changed to the Vector template today just in case anyone wondered. Now I changed to the Doogie template for testing, see my other mail.
It's kind of ugly to me. It looks like a worse default Wordpress theme :) I'm still +1 for standard WikiMedia-looking templates.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Am 30.05.2011 00:40, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 23:12:38 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011 06:59:29 +1000, Russell wrote:
2011/5/17 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de:
On Sun, 8 May 2011 18:41:32 +0200, Enrico wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:59:08 -0700, Matthew wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm ashamed this topic is already so old and nothing happened so far because I didn't manage to set up the Wiki yet.
I'll set up the Wiki next week or at least next weekend, hopefully. Thanks for your patience.
Here we go:
For now, it's a pretty raw default installation.
What we need is a fancy theme and of course content.
Also we may need to discuss a license to use for the content, for now I kept the Dokuwiki default value: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
Currently, registration is disabled. I think we should go for open registration coupled with a captcha. For now, if you want an account to write, drop me a short mail with your desired username via private mail and I'll setup it up instantly. So we hopefully can quickly play with it around and tune it to our needs.
If you know any cool plugins we could use or have any ideas, please share them.
Regards, Enrico
Regarding the template for the wiki, I just browsed the gallery of Dokuwiki templates and quite like this one: http://www.dokuwiki.org/template%3Avector. It's very similar to the default template but looks a little smoother.
I think it looks quite like MediaWiki but I don't mind. No objections here.
I just changed the template to "Arctic" [1]. I like it though this is more or less just to test it, it's not a final decision. I'd like to get some more feedback about the template question.
Unfortunately, the author of the Arctic template won't maintain it anymore in the future but since it seems to be widely on the net, maybe someone else will continue maintaining it. I like that it has a sidebar which is quite flexible. At the moment, I just put a simple list of the categories in it as a simple navigation. Though we could change it later.
And again, this is just a test, I'd also be ok with the Vector template.
Personally I don't like this theme very much but don't care ;D and maybe some of the CSS/HTML experts could build up our own template.
Cheers, Frank