On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Christopher Done <chrisd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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.
It was more of a general comment. When everything's on the same page, I can do ctrl-f "happ" and find information about all the pieces of happstack. As I said, I think a search function is a good replacement. >> 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. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Web/Existing_software >> * 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? I would recommend *not* qualifying the active/recommended stuff. Maybe "Frameworks" and "Frameworks/Inactive". I personally wouldn't want to group new, unevaluated code with inactive: I think we should give the new players the same publicity as the established products on the main page, but perhaps with a little label explaining how new/untested it is. Michael _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
