From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/15494 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt Gushee Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Re: ConTeXt-Wiki Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:13:00 -0600 Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: <20040622161300.GA5608@swordfish> References: <6.1.1.1.2.20040601200608.01eb9640@server-1> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1087921006 946 80.91.224.253 (22 Jun 2004 16:16:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:16:46 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Tue Jun 22 18:16:22 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ref.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.13] helo=ref.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bcnwb-0003Ja-00 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:16:21 +0200 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE90E10B89; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:16:17 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from mz1.forethought.net (mzpi3.forethought.net [216.241.36.12]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DED10B85 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:13:03 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from [216.241.35.41] (helo=swordfish) by mz1.forethought.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BcntN-0006yi-9j for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:13:01 -0600 Original-Received: from matt by swordfish with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BcntM-0001Yy-00 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:13:00 -0600 Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Errors-To: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk X-Reply-To: Matt Gushee List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:15494 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:15494 On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:55:24PM +0200, Patrick Gundlach wrote: > > Arguments for a collection could be: > > > > 1) Perhaps a comprehensive and classified collection of sample documents > > could spare others such time consuming trials. > > a) it is impossible to have a comprehensive collection of documents. > There are too many faces ConTeXt has. > > b) It is hard to classify the documents. Two possibilities: Yes, it is hard to classify them (and many other things) if you insist on forcing them into a single, canonical hierarchy. But what if you classified documents on the basis of keywords, or key phrases? Then visitors could either search based on those phrases or browse a keyword index. Of course, that assumes your Wiki software has some means of managing metadata. And you could just make some arbitrary decisions about what materials should be included and how to classify them. Even a very imperfect collection would be more helpful than none. And if people don't like your collection, tell them to start their own. Isn't that what the Web is all about? -- Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, Englewood, Colorado, USA Horses bear manure through mgushee@havenrock.com its fields; http://www.havenrock.com/ When a nation ignores the Way, Horses bear soldiers through its streets. --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)