kennethreitz
commented
12 years ago In my ideal world, this would be both historical and up-to-date.
Example of a perfect changeset, in my mind: #12
Closed jonathantneal closed 5 years ago
kennethreitz
commented
12 years ago In my ideal world, this would be both historical and up-to-date.
Example of a perfect changeset, in my mind: #12
jonathantneal
commented
12 years ago Agreed. That's perfect because it does little to change the existing text. It's easy because it doesn't change the direction of the language, it only updates the data. With data changes, it only gets difficult if the remark was "IE is bad because it doesn't support X" and then IE starts supporting X. We would be forced to concede that the text should either indicate that IE is now good, or that it should removed entirely.
Another issue. At some point, there will be more HTML5 technology, like image sets, to add. I would think we should not avoid these unexplored topics. Therefore, we would be writing our own sentences about them. What do you think?
tchalvak
commented
10 years ago Just came across something like this while making the PR for https://github.com/diveintomark/diveintohtml5/issues/69 and I think part of the issue is that there's no README.mkdown for the repo, which would help get some of how to approach questions that I had like:
Mark wrote in conversational style, which is why it's all so readable, should we emulate that? What if we suck at emulating that approachable & readable writing style? ( : D ) What about images; many of the images used are black and white, and have that old-timey-clip-art feel to them, what kind of images make sense? (I just ended up skipping the images because they felt so out of place). How do people generally end up editing this raw html, is there a consistent tool that will simplify this process? (I ended up editing the raw html, which was a PITA with all the code h1 br span /span /h1 /code html elements)
I think that a README.mkdown would be a good place to at least start being able to clarify stuff like that.
Mikaela
commented
10 years ago There could also be contributing file.
ghost
commented
5 years ago There could also be contributing file.
Before there can be a contributing file I'd say the project should either be cross-linked or merged with the fork from @jonathantneal. I see commits from Irish in here so I'm going to suggest @jonathantneal subs a pull with one commit per section and we all take a stab at reviewing then address the URL issue I just opened with #92. This is a great resource – I'm happy to help review.
paulirish
commented
5 years ago @jhabdas afaik this repo is up to date with jonathan's fork.
closing this issue as the repo is in a state of low-maintenance.
Recently we learned that a lot of people think this GitHub project is a memorial to Mark Pilgrim, and they treat it with a kind of reverence as though our touching it were removing his dead body from a casket.
It's sad because the man isn't even dead either. That's my opinion, at least. Mark put it on GitHub at one point so we could fork it. This was Mark Pilgrim's Disneyland, and I think it works in the same way as Walt put it:
However, as a canonical resource, we have to decide how we're going to treat this gift we have been left with. What is okay to edit in this living document? Is it a living document? Should we revert other changes? Do we update sections that are wrong or outdated? Do we stick to changing pure numbers, dates, and "easy" things? Would we ever change the layout to fit on a tablet?
These and others are the questions I'd like us to answer.
We can't leave this to a mob consensus in the future. Earlier today someone asserted something to me as though Mark were a deity: "When Mark said 'with contributions from the community' he didn't mean for you to put words into his mouth" ... though, ironically for both of us, the truth is that "with contributions from the community" are my words.