Re: FSD as a Git repository

[Bone Baboon]

quiliro@riseup.net writes:

> Greg Farough <gregf@fsf.org> writes:
>
>> If MediaWiki were a gigantic web application, things would be
>> different. But as it is, it's a perfectly acceptable free software
>> solution that the vast majority of contributors are going to find more
>> user-friendly than submitting edits over eww.el or a similarly niche
>> setup. I don't think it's reasonable for a contributor to *expect* a
>> way to edit the Directory without running JavaScript, but I still
>> think it makes for a good "hobby project" for a volunteer.
>>
>> If the Directory's MediaWiki installation is posing problems for
>> screen readers, that's a separate issue and one definitely worth
>> closer research.
>
> Why would one user's need be more important than another?  Plain text is
> not a solution for most users.  It is a solution for all users because
> it can be adapted to all needs.  The other way around is much more
> complicated and sometimes impossible.
>
> Striving for accessibility from the ground up by way of plain text would
> allow everyone to participate.  Of course that it would need work.  But
> I think that if CVS can be used by non-techies and in big teams of
> collaboration successfully in other projects, it can obviously handle de
> FSD much better than the complicated way it is done now.
>
> I do think that it was good in the past.  But times change.  I do not
> think that they will change towards more Javascript.  I think that they
> will change towards more standardization.  There is nothing more
> standard than plain text.  So it is sure to be more future proof,
> adaptable and secure than Javascript or Media Wiki or PHP.

These are good points on:
* accessibility
* future proofing / adaptability