Re: [Edbrowse-dev] wiki

[Adam Thompson <arthompson1990@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:21:22AM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote:
> Thanks Adam for your feedback.

That's ok, anything I can do to help.

> I will make a couple responses, then should we take this discussion off line -
> as this list is more for development and all
> the technical issues that still confront us??

I don't know, I think it's important to have user input on this.

> > should there be a reference to ed when talking about it?
> 
> Yes. Missed that one. Done.
> 
> > The philosophy section is largely unsourced.
> 
> Yes that was and is one of my concerns.
> But it seems (to me) to important to omit.
> It is the very reason for writing edbrowse in the first place.
> It has to start somewhere, and I don't see ACM or I triple E publishing
> a paper on it, so not sure how to get the ball rolling.
> Worst case I suppose they could contest that particular section.

Yeah, I see what you mean, I wonder if it could be condensed with a reference to the relevant web page?

> > describing the direction that accessibility should take.
> 
> Well I tried hard not to say where it *should* go, only pointing out
> that there are different approaches.
> Their writing guidelines say that's ok.
> It's all right to say there are approaches A and B out there,
> and even quote some people who support A and some people who support B,
> as long as you quote both sides.
> Like the Broken Windows theory of policing,
> which I read about, where they quote people who like it and people who don't,
> and that's ok; though I didn't want to work that hard,
> or write that much, and I still don't want to,
> but I think it would help to say approaches A and B exist,
> because right now only about 100 people in the world know about approach B.

Perhaps, but I wonder if this article is the right place to put it.

> 
> > Also, probably remove the link to Jupiter as it's very obscure.
> 
> I initially wanted to put it in, as opposed to speakup and the others
> that you mention, because it uniquely isn't a screen reader.
> It captures and reads a linear log of output, consistent with linear programs.
> In that sense it is part of approach B.
> But if you didn't get that subtle distinction then I'm not making the point
> well enough, and it's too obscure and too tangential,
> and you're right I just shouldn't go there.
> This is about the editor browser, not various kinds of adapters.
> So I have removed that link.

Ok.

> > you probably want to focus more on the technical and feature aspects
> 
> I hadn't thought of this.
> A section called == Features ==
> But as I write it in my mind, a b command to browse, a g command to go
> to a hyperlink, etc, I wonder if it wouldn't be incomprehensible,
> unless you were fluent in ed, which damn few people are.
> I'll have to think about that one.

I was more thinking in terms of:
Perl compatible regular expressions
http, https etc support for web browsing
email support (not sure exactly what as I personally don't use this)
database support (again not sure on the details)
Multi-buffer support
Configuration file with macro language
Scriptability via popen and friends
Possible examples for the above two
etc

> 
> > and less on user opinions
> 
> Again, their writing guidelines say it is fine to quote peoples reactions
> to a theory or idea or product,
> they say it is even helpful to the reader,
> as long as you are somewhat even handed.
> And I do find these third party quotes in a lot of their articles.
> John says String Theory does indeed explain the fabrik of the universe,
> but Tim says it is a silly mathematical exercise.

Ok, I didn't know that was the case.

Cheers,
Adam.