On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:34:04 +0000 Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> said:
> Hi, > > When I use "Markdown" I mean those tools that are common in *at least* the > implementation of the core definition at > https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax - I do not mean the > concept of a simplified text markup. > > It is trivial to identify if a syntax complies to this and most of those > with "markdown" in the title do so - github flavoured markdown - php > markdown extra are a couple of popular ones (that happen to have extensions > in common as well, but that's a bonus). > Markdown as inspired bu John Gruber, is becoming somewhat standard and that > allows us to expect interoperability greater than if we use a specific wiki > format. > > I would like to be able to embed our API documentation into Edi - others > (Samsung for example) would like to be able to embed it elsewhere. Our > documentation writers would like to use a preview based editor so that > their lives are not text based for the duration of the project (did I > mention that markdown editors in dokuwiki support live preview?). > > There are many things possible if we use a more common format. At the same > time it does not remove functionality like including other pages or editing > online - I don't say that out of opinion, I have the plugin loaded here and > can use it as stated. > > Why do you assert that the benefits I listed are not possible? > Andrew well for starters includes are not part of: https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax using just this "minimal markdown standard" will lead to issues allowing it to be editable (eg edit body but not the format/template). how will it be sane to have a format/template for a page read-only but have body editable? at least that is how i was originally seeing docs being laid out by using includes to do this. you say it doesn't remove including of pages ... yet the markdown doesn't support that as you point out... this is what has got me going "this doesnt seem like a great idea". if you do use includes (and the markdown plugin can handle both dokuwiki format AND your flavor of markdown above at the same time ... which somehow seems odd if it did), then these non-standard dokuwiki things are not interoperable with tools and other things etc. ... ? i'm having trouble reconciling the above. > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 10:57 Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > -- > http://andywilliams.me > http://ajwillia.ms -- ------------- 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
