Poll: Which Style should be used?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Sample Style
4 100.00%
As originally posted.
0 0%
Total 4 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
There is much confusion on the style to follow in the individual articles, the style as originally posted and the style set forth in the SampleStyle page. Please vote to select the style to use.
his sig left intentionally blank
im really not sure whats the style youre talking about that was originally posted. all i have to ask is... am i doing everything ok? if not please let me know now b4 i get any farther...
I mean the format the pages are in, as they were when SysOp posted them, before any other people edited them, thier sections, asthetic, etc.
As to whether your doing it right or not, Thats what this poll will determine Smile
his sig left intentionally blank
Okay, then ill take a break lol...
Keep the one used in ABS, the wiki is just a way to get more people contributing, it won't be the end format, so it must be simple to convert later.

Admins can't do much, only change the page access, any deletion and renaming has to be done using direct DB access..
This means that if we all agree to change styles all of the work you've done today Cha0s will have to be reformated (which it looks like it might be).

The 'new' format is at http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?...tylesample as opposed to using the FBtags (a la .http://www.freebasic.net/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=KeyPgAbs).
FBtags must be used, wiki is just an intermediate format as nobody wanted to work using XML (i don't disagree with them, writing docs is boring, following a strict formatting is much worse).

Quoting myself:

Quote:I'm against complex formatting, it will make the pages hard to convert to anything else and hard to maintain and edit, lets use the simple formatting, as in #DEFINE.

This Wiki can't return the outer text of tags, so there wouldn't be a way to use the {{fbdoc}} actions.
It seems most people like the sample style. But if we must use the FBTags, then I'm ok with that. But this does raise one question.


Excuse me for perhaps being naive, but won't it be just as easy to parse the format of the sample style sheet as it would be the tags? This is what I haven't got yet with any of the format arguments. So long as the formatting tools are consistent, we can parse it to any new format we want.

It seems I'm missing something, but I have written parsers for some nasty, human screwed up data and it wasn't that bad. And here we are talking about a bunch of programmers. I would imagine that so long as the format was well stated we could follow it, FBTags or otherwise.

I'm just a bit confused.
Yeah, to be honest I really don't get all of this nonsense (sorry) either. As long as it's helping someone to learn the language, what's the harm..? Like keeling said, we're not a bunch of no0bs that can't handle "exceptions". we're programmers. we could write a prser to do anything with any format. I think looking at FB is enough to see that ANYTHING is possible. So, seriously, What is the big deal..?
I don't see the reason why the aesthetics of the pages is being discussed.

That wiki is an intermediary format, not the final one(s), it is being used because it is simpler to edit than say XML or LaTex. The FBDOC tags were kept simple so people wouldn't complain and forget about ending tags and so on, what would break the parsing later.

fb.net has only 100mb of TOTAL disk space, and only 2.5GB of monthly transfer (kindly donated by Plasma). More images, more formatting and it will be over the limits soon.

FBDOC tags must be used because there are no other marks or tags, the source will be taken from the database records, not from the generated web pages. The records have nothing but the Wiki formatting, that doesn't help making the parsing to other formats easy to do as any contributor would follow his own rules if no predefined tags were used.

Why complicate the formatting, i don't get it.. See any open-source docs, nobody cares about eye candy, the content is what matters, forget the cosmetics.

So again, while the wiki a magnitude easier to edit, it will be much complex to convert to anything else than HTML. While your part will be simplified, mine will be harder, as i will have to convert them to CHM, PDF and possibly to man pages for being used in Linux. Having to hand edit later is not an option, or it will become an maintenance hell everytime the docs are updated.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)