> Peter wrote: >> What about one lua table per command? >> See also: >> - http://meeting.contextgarden.net/2010/talks/2010-09-14-peter-referencelua/
NB1: I waffled a lot about wiki templates in the previous e-mail, but of course it is also an option to use the Lua tables format and store those files on the wiki. That gives us the visibility and editability of the wiki without binding us to the wiki template format. --Sietse On 22 March 2013 15:42, Sietse Brouwer <sbbrou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Peter wrote: >> What about one lua table per command? >> See also: >> - http://meeting.contextgarden.net/2010/talks/2010-09-14-peter-referencelua/ > > Lukáš wrote: >> Some connection to wiki would be useful, too - once a command >> definition is prepared for PDF manual, it would be good to have >> a generator which would convert and add info to wiki. >> >> But I'm thinking about how to avoid doubling documentation work >> (not: wiki <-> PDF <-> whatever, but: something (be it Lua) -> {PDF, wiki, >> whatever}). > > Hello all, > > As regards the question 'where/how to store a the master information > of the command reference'; I' been thinking on that for a while, and I > believe "on the wiki / in structured wiki templates" is the best > answer. > > This is not because the wiki syntax is so nice -- as far as that goes, > Lua is nicer. But: the wiki is massively more visible than any file or > directory in the standalone could ever be. > > These are advantages the wiki copy has over other copies: > > A. It is the most visible copy > B. It is the easiest copy for people to edit > C. It has versioning and contributor-tracking built-in > D. The wiki will always receive contributions. If it is also the > master copy, we don't have to backmerge the contributions into some > other file. > E. The wiki updates immediately when people edit it. > F. There exists a form-based editor for wiki pages, to ensure people > use the template. Example: > http://discoursedb.org/w/index.php?title=Picture_IDs_are_perfectly_sensible&action=formedit > G. There exists an extension to mark versions as 'reviewed'. > > Now, creating a suitable template is core to this plan. Since that is > (1) a rather tricky problem, (2) one that I want to solve anyway > (because even if we go Lua-based, we still want a wiki template to > write to), I will open a separate e-mail thread on the subject. > > == How to make sure people use the template? == > > The Semantic Forms extension means that with one click of the button, > you are taken to a semantic form to create or edit (part of) a command > page. You fill in the fields; the extension enters the field values > into the proper bits of the template. You can add descriptions of what > to write in the field. > > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms > Example of how such a form will look: > http://discoursedb.org/w/index.php?title=Picture_IDs_are_perfectly_sensible&action=formedit > > > == How do we know we can trust wiki edits? == > > For that, there is the MediaWiki extension Flagged Revisions, to mark > versions as approved. It is used by wikibooks, inter alia. > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs > > Cheers, > > Sietse ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
