Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 6:38:58 PM, Patrick wrote:
If the separate pages describe sufficiently distinct tasks,
then to me it's okay for them to exist as separate pages even
if they all rely on a common script or engine. However, they
should probably tend to exist in separate categories --
On 4/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, H. Fox wrote:
On 4/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
No, I think I prefer the groups to not have the Cookbook prefix. Or if
they do, please use
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
No, I think I prefer the groups to not have the Cookbook prefix. Or if
they do, please use a hyphen in the group name.
Is there some page with information/instructions for authors of recipes?
This information should go there.
Hmm...
I think in any case, a recipe page w/in the cookbook is still a good
idea -- there are a number of different search-types that don't bring
up category-tags.
The cookbook is then a portal to the larger group, where there can be
more demos, talk-talk-talk, etc.
-the Other michael
On 4/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
No, I think I prefer the groups to not have the Cookbook prefix. Or if
they do, please use a hyphen in the group name.
Is there some page with information/instructions for authors of
I have a request to set a limit to the Summary line of the cookbook
recipe info sections.
The Summary gets used in many pagelists on pmwiki.org to provide a
short quick way to see what the recipe is about. It is not meant for
a comprehensive description IMO. So I propose that perhaps a 20 word
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:09:03AM +0100, Hans wrote:
I have a request to set a limit to the Summary line of the cookbook
recipe info sections.
The Summary gets used in many pagelists on pmwiki.org to provide a
short quick way to see what the recipe is about. It is not meant for
a
Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 11:23:05 AM, Patrick wrote:
Policy, perhaps. I don't want to enforce a strict limit, and on the
whole humans are much better at determining appropriate lengths.
On the whole yes. But there are exceptions.
However, I also agree with Hans that Summary: is intended
On 4/18/07, Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 11:23:05 AM, Patrick wrote:
Policy, perhaps. I don't want to enforce a strict limit, and on the
whole humans are much better at determining appropriate lengths.
On the whole yes. But there are exceptions.
However, I
Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 12:16:03 PM, The wrote:
Namely, that recipe writers only have one recipe page for each
distinct recipe, and not a completely separate page for each possible
application of it--like ZAPforum, ZAPblog, ZAPvote, etc.. Those could
all be stored in a ZAP group and links
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 04:25:20PM +, Sandy wrote:
It is possible to condense the 6 lines into much less.
[...]
One possibility:
Acme (alias ZAP). Advanced forms processing, member and file management,
page editing and insertions, newsletters, shopping cart.
Sandy proposes exactly what
What PM said about pages for recipes, yes.
But... why does everybody seem to want to stick EVERYTHING into the cookbook?
If only there was some way to rapidly create web-content that was
organised into sub-groups.
Christian has been very good with his EMacsModes group:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, the Other michael wrote:
What PM said about pages for recipes, yes.
But... why does everybody seem to want to stick EVERYTHING into the cookbook?
If only there was some way to rapidly create web-content that was
organised into sub-groups.
Christian has been very good
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:00:07AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, the Other michael wrote:
In hindsight, and given that we don't have hierarchical groups, perhaps I
should have placed the pages in a group called:
14 matches
Mail list logo
