Re: Project lead nominations for standard libraries?

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Rob Kendrick <rjek@rjek.com> wrote:
> I don't get it; what's wrong with lua-users.org?  It's collaborative,
> well-known, linked from the official site, established, and everything
> else I can think of.  I think it even allows for binary attachments.

There's very little that's wrong with it, it has been a fantastic
resource. I like its non-bureaucratic nature, and for more discursive
documents it is perfect.[1]

But consider putting up a page for a module. An organized person will
put in what is needed, licence, dependencies, scope, etc - but each
organized person will do it differently, and non-organized people
(like myself) will just write away until it 'feels enough'.  What is
cool about a generalized wiki engine like Sputnik is that making a
page for a project involves a specialized template that ensures that
certain essential things are captured, and then displayed in a
standard way.

Instead of representing the page as a blob of marked-up text with
revision history, the page is a custom Lua table structure that has
custom Lua code for rendering as HTML - and all this with revision
history.

steve d.

[1] it's true that there are a few improvements that would be useful,
and this might make a productive thread of its own. Do note that
binary files on the Wiki are marked 'insecure' for good reason
however.