On 2 October 2010 22:13, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> wrote: > I understand the advantages to splitting into multiple pages, but on > the other hand it *does* make it more difficult to locate information.
It does? What's an example? I'll fix it. > My guess is a good search function on the wiki will make that point > moot. Probably! > * Does pass.net still exist anywhere? Same for parallel web. I couldn't find any references to pass.net. > * Should older, unmaintained stuff (Wash, for example) be removed > entirely, placed on its own page or be obviously marked as > unmaintained? Yes, I think so. There are a lot of frameworks on that page that are just cluttering it up, most of them are unmaintained or don't really have a big user-base. Perhaps we should split it to Active / Recommended and Inactive / Unevaluated or something like that. If I was looking for web frameworks I'd want to know which ones were actively maintained and then *maybe* what other ones there are. It could well be two pages. Frameworks/Active or Recommended_Frameworks and then the other. I'm not sure. Thoughts, chaps? On 2 October 2010 22:24, Gwern Branwen <gwe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> * Should we rename HAppS to Happstack everywhere? > > I think we should. No one is using the old HAppS code, so references > are just misleading. Agreed. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe