[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Project lead nominations for standard libraries?
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 17:16:00 +0200
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Rob Kendrick <email@example.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.
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
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
 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