[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Bug-gnupedia] Formatting.
From: |
Bill Volk |
Subject: |
RE: [Bug-gnupedia] Formatting. |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:49:05 -0800 |
Good stuff ... but we need some 'dotted' classification system such as:
article.science.biology.genetics.human.gene ... ala Dewey Decimal ... so we
can do effective searches.
Could be pull down menus on the submission site etc...
I also think we want a user-feedback system to correct bad classifications
and even (pray tell) rate articles for usefullness etc...
Bill Volk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Behalf Of Duncan Lock
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:03 AM
> To: 'address@hidden'
> Subject: RE: [Bug-gnupedia] Formatting.
>
>
> This should be self explanatory with some XML coding experience. It
> contains a section for authors, a section for reviewers and thier
> reviews, a
> section for copyleft type stuff and the content of the article.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dunc
>
> Suggested internal article format:
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <?xml:stylesheet rel="stylesheet" type="text/xsl"
> href="article-stylesheet.xsl" ?>
>
> <article>
> <authors>
> <author>
> <name></name>
> <email></email>
> <wwwurl></wwwurl>
> <digital-signature></digital-signature>
> </author>
> ...
> </authors>
> <version>
> <number></number>
> <created-on></created-on>
> <last-updated></last-updated>
> </version>
> <reviews>
> <reviewer>
> <name></name>
> <email></email>
> <wwwurl></wwwurl>
> <digital-signature></digital-signature>
> <date-of-review></date-of-review>
> <review>
> </review>
> </reviewer>
> ...
> </reviews>
> <copyleft></copyleft>
>
> <content>
>
> </content>
> </article>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Behalf Of Andy Fletcher
> Sent: 17 January 2001 4:14
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] Formatting.
>
>
> Hope that I am not repeating too much of what has already been said.
>
> Formatting of submissions
> ====================
> We need to come up with a standard format for submissions so that
> crossreferences, keywords, authors etc. can be clearly identified.
> A consistant look and feel for the encyclopedia will only come about if we
> do that.
>
> We also need to come up with a standard format early on so that we do not
> get a massive pile of submissions which have to be reworked.
>
> XML is definitely the way to go from the viewpoint of the backend as it
> allows the data to be structured and indexed in an easy way. If the
> submissions are in HTML then finding all articles posted by a certain
> person could be very difficult. In XML you just check the author tag. Same
> principle applies for other fields.
>
> >From the viewpoint of the author XML can be a big pain when the validator
> keeps chucking the submissions out. It is also not easy for the non-techie
> to get into.
>
> The solution is to first define and agree an XML DTD/Schema for
> submissions
> with author tags/image links etc (we also have to consider how to assign
> reference IDs for images). Review comments could be inserted within
> predefined elements at the end of the XML document. Once this is done a
> webpage can be created with a forms/file-upload presentation. When the
> user clicks on the submit button the CGI script then creates the XML
> document and submits it into the system. There are Perl modules
> which will
> do exactly this.
>
> We can also define a mapping from a flat text file with keywords
> to the XML
> format which looks for strings like "$Author: $ or even Groff source if
> someone is mad enough.
>
> Generating the displayed web pages is really simple if we do not
> try to get
> too clever. At the simplest level we could convert all XML elements to <p>
> or the equivalent with a class <p class="author"> when serving them from
> the webserver.
>
> I can come up with an XML template if it would help the discussion. The
> important thing at this stage is to be rigorous with the document formats,
> if we are not then there could be a lot of work in the future.
>
> Does any of this help the discussion ?
>
> Andy
> >