On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:17:05 +0000 Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown specifically GFM vs commonmark. github call it markdown. stackoverflow's markdown is commonmark. they are not compatible (strikethrough, tables etc.) ... there is no SINGLE markdown nor {"official one" github markdown != stackoverflow (common mark) != remark (it is a markdown... of some sort that's partly compatible), vs trac vs dokuwiki vs mediawiki vs... they all use a markdown of some sort. a shorthand generally simple/compressed metadata definition within a text file that's less strict and simpler than something like html. i am disagreeing that there is a single specific common makrdown format that is magically going to work everywhere markdown is used. if you want to say "commonmark" is the spec then http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ doesn't to my scan define any way to include other files like dokuwiki markdown does, for example. so what you say works is seemingly non-standard markdown, so you're back to custom markdown's again that are dependent on the wiki engine they run in. i know dokuwiki is both the wiki engine and a specification for the markdown it understands. it's actually kind of a mix of markdown and markup with somethings being html-like tags and others more like markdown... but i know the name refers to both. my point is now you are going to introduce a different markdown format that ... is not going to be compatible with other markdown engines (as above) or is not going to have the kinds of features needed to allow editing online what is a mix of generated non-editable and editable blocks of content (the includes solve/allow for this for example). so i'm not sure where you are going with this. it seems to just bring complexity (more markdown formats) without the benefits you claim (see above). > Hi, > > I am struggling with the factual inaccuracies - phab is not markdown (they > call it "similar to" > https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/remarkup/), trac is > not markdown (it is inspired by previous wikis > https://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/WikiFormatting) but all of this is > irrelevant to the point. > > MarkDown is a common format that many have extended. Case in point - we > were working on some documentation last night and one of the group did not > want to put it in the wiki yet so they uploaded it to github temporarily. > And you know what? Their web engine automatically formatted it correctly - > I then loaded it into dokuwiki with markdown enabled and the same thing - > the content, heirarchy, markup and syntax highlighting all just worked. > Whether we like it or not GitHub has changed the way that people think > about social coding and their adoption of Markdown has had a big impact on > people using it as a standard (there are book authoring systems and > presentation apps using it as the main format). > > What I was proposing is to use MarkDown instead of Dokuwiki syntax (due to > the benefits already listed) and this has no bearing on the choice of > dokuwiki or the functionality - it is merely the syntax used. Online > editing works just as well, page includes also work through "frontmatter" > much as before. Your assertion that using any other format makes it > uneditable seems completely untrue - what is causing your concern here? > > Is it possible that in this discussion we have confused the word dokuwiki > as a format and dokuwiki as a product? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 02:03 Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:31:34 +0000 Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> > > said: > > > > > Googling "is dokuwiki markdown?" returns a dokuwiki page stating > > "Markdown > > > is a text markup language. So is DokuWiki syntax. Or MediaWiki syntax. > > > There are similarities but none of them is a dialect of the other". > > > The standards page https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763 lists > > > http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ as the original source and > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7764 lists recognised extensions > > including > > > https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/ and > > > https://help.github.com/articles/github-flavored-markdown/ but nothing > > > about dokuwiki. > > > So you'll forgive me for saying that you calling dokuwiki syntax markdown > > > does not make it so. > > > > well i listed examples. i've been through many markdown wiki systems over > > the > > years and none have been compatible (partially yes, totally - no). all are > > described as markdown. phab has markdown... and it was incompatible with > > trac, > > both of which are incompatible with mediawiki and so on... but they share > > some > > similar elements and ideas common to markdowns like: > > > > this **is bold** or //italic// (maybe they use '' or -- or other chars but > > the > > idea is core to markdown variants). > > > > my point here is... dokuwiki is the wiki we're using. to allow docs to be > > editable on a wiki we have to commit to the formatting of that wiki as > > being > > "the format" because otherwise it's not editable. sure. add more plugins > > more > > more formats but then you just added "yet another markdown" format and we > > now > > have to deal with 2 of them in the same wiki. > > > > > Interoperability is good for us all. It means we can easily change > > tooling > > > if we need to, it means the learning curve is lower and it means we can > > do > > > cool things like embedding it in Edi etc as the format is well recognised > > > etc. > > > > that just does not exist in the wiki world. see above. > > > > > I agree with all the ideals of editing online etc etc - the choice of > > > format should make no difference here as the dokuwiki is pretty simple > > even > > > for their chosen format no? > > > Andrew > > > > i frankly don't much care what the format is... but i chose dokuwiki > > because it > > had all the elements needed to be able to build a documentation system > > already. > > it could include multiple sources into a single page (thus allowing some > > parts > > of a page to be editable, others not and be a generated template). etc. > > ... by > > switching to something else we now have to redo all that evaluation etc. :( > > > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 20:53 Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:25:20 +0000 Andrew Williams < > > a...@andywilliams.me> > > > > said: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately dokuwiki is not markdown - > > > > > > > > Well... it is markdown AND markup with an eclectic mix of both. there > > > > isn't a > > > > single markdown format. every wiki has it's own which is slightly > > > > different, > > > > but commonly they have very short ways to do a link (especially inside > > the > > > > wiki), and use **, //, for bold/italic or similar, equals for headlines > > > > etc. ... so i'd call it markdown. it is a very specific kind of > > markdown. > > > > > > > > > https://www.dokuwiki.org/wiki:syntax , what I was proposing moves > > us to > > > > the > > > > > php extended markdown which is well known and supported by most php > > based > > > > > apps if not more. > > > > > By changing to a standardised format we can have better > > interoperability > > > > > and also have our auto generated docs integrate into the website much > > > > > better. > > > > > > > > why do we need interoperability? the docs really only have one main > > > > purpose. > > > > to be displayed by dokuwiki. as i gather you are proposing to put > > content > > > > into > > > > the dokuwiki content tree ... and that by definition is dokuwiki > > > > markdown/up/whatever ... > > > > > > > > one of the ideas for our documentation was to have the docs be live > > > > editable > > > > content on the wiki and auto-generation from source is really all about > > > > building the templates and raw "code content" then having sections > > that are > > > > user editable along even with user discussion threads. the php doc site > > > > works > > > > this way so questions and answers about apis, classes or topics stay > > > > together > > > > with the docs and become part of them. if the docs on something could > > be > > > > improved, any user can improve them just by editing the wiki. thus i > > see > > > > the > > > > need to have the wiki format be consistent and the docs are very > > closely > > > > tied > > > > to dokuwiki. > > > > > > > > > As for languages the figuring was that we have a specific list of > > > > supported > > > > > languages for the new interfaces work. I may have missed a line or > > two as > > > > > there was nothing to add or I forgot - but we could be more explicit > > for > > > > > sure. > > > > > What do the community think are our official supported languages? We > > > > have a > > > > > lot of manual binding or external contributions so it’s kind of hard > > to > > > > > tell... > > > > > > > > I'd say lua is probably the most important and interesting. it's > > already > > > > used > > > > for documentation generation. it's used inside efl (edje and evas > > > > filters). it > > > > also is the only language other than c++ that doesn't need extra > > > > dependencies > > > > beyond what efl already has. we have libelua even as an easy front end > > to > > > > use > > > > for using lua script in your code. c++ i'd say is a very close second > > > > since it > > > > also needs now extra dependencies and we already build by default out > > of > > > > the > > > > box like we do with lua. the next batch would be python (which we have > > no > > > > generators for in tree yet) and js (node.js/v8), with c# at the end > > ATM. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Andrew > > > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 05:48, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:53:09 +0000 Andrew Williams < > > > > a...@andywilliams.me> > > > > > > said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am looking at how we should be trying to structure our > > > > documentation as > > > > > > > we update for interfaces and slowly move aside the legacy pages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've made this page to summarise my thinking so far - capturing > > what > > > > we > > > > > > > should migrate, what we should add and a few items that don't > > seem > > > > to fit > > > > > > > yet in the new structure. I have linked tickets from the main doc > > > > > > > improvement task as well to see how much we've got covered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://phab.enlightenment.org/w/doc_system/doc_structure/ > > > > > > > > > > > > what about lua? and c++? at least your sample list seems to be a > > bit > > > > > > inconsistent with languages in sections. is this intended? or just > > an > > > > > > oversight? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think - I hope this is heading in the > > > > right > > > > > > > direction. Of note is that it splits the dev docs out from the > > user > > > > docs > > > > > > > which will also make it easier to transition :) > > > > > > > > > > > > comment about .md.txt vs .txt - why? everything in the wiki is > > already > > > > > > .txt and > > > > > > it's markdown by definition... if you create a wiki page its always > > > > just > > > > > > .txt > > > > > > when going through the web ui... why change the pattern already > > there. > > > > i > > > > > > also > > > > > > am not sure the urls to pages will come out nicely if its .md.txt > > > > instead > > > > > > of > > > > > > just .txt. e.g.: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.enlightenment.org/docs/c/start > > > > > > > > > > > > is the url for docs/c/start.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise i see no issues with what you put there. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > http://andywilliams.me > > > > > > > http://ajwillia.ms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > > > > > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > > > > > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" > > > > -------------- > > > > > > Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://andywilliams.me > > > > > http://ajwillia.ms > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" > > -------------- > > > > Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://andywilliams.me > > > http://ajwillia.ms > > > > > > -- > > ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- > > Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com > > > > -- > http://andywilliams.me > http://ajwillia.ms > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
