Menu
▾
▴
phpwebsite-developers
|
From: <re...@ki...> - 2005-05-03 07:07:03
|
=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: php...@li...=20 > [mailto:php...@li...] Im=20 > Auftrag von php...@li... > Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Mai 2005 05:18 > An: php...@li... > Betreff: Phpwebsite-developers digest, Vol 1 #808 - 2 msgs >=20 > > Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this=20 > mindset 100% > > (I'm at 98% so far). >=20 > Flat is fine with me, and that is all that really matters. Just to be sure I understood that: Matt is rewriting the comment module = and wants to remove all views but the flat one? To be honest, I don't like = the idea to only have flat in later revisions of the comment module.=20 In fact, for me it's the other way round: I love the threaded / nested = view and would also want it in the phpwsbb module. The reason is pretty = simple: Laziness. People don't use quotes but the hierarchy of comments to = outline dependencies Take for example the Visitors article <http://www.kiesler.at/article148.html> or the Typo3 article <http://www.kiesler.at/article174.html>. If you remove the nesting here, you don't have any chance of following = the discussions. Please keep also in mind, that one can change post-titles, = so they wouldn't help either even if people only use to reply to the newest posts. That's why I usually prefer "threaded" views and "threaded" newsclients. see also http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D1166323&group_id=3D15= 539&atid=3D 365539 regards, Ren=E9 C. Kiesler! |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-03 12:00:25
|
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:02 +0200, Ren=C3=A9 C. Kiesler wrote: > In fact, for me it's the other way round: I love the threaded / nested = view > and would also want it in the phpwsbb module. The reason is pretty simp= le: > Laziness. People don't use quotes but the hierarchy of comments to outl= ine > dependencies Brian had the same argument, but these view don't get to the root of problem. Instead of creating new problems with threaded/nested views, develop new tools for flat view navigation. > If you remove the nesting here, you don't have any chance of following = the > discussions.=20 Then I believe we should ask "why" flat view is not conducive to following discussions. What are some different subsets of the flat view that would allow this? I am going to work on comments more today. I really want to get an example up this week but some bug always pops up. We'll see. --=20 Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-03 14:32:33
|
Just as something to throw in to the melting pot... http://www.1976design.com/blog/archive/2003/11/12/comments/ It's flat view but you can click a checkbox to link it to a parent. It's a bit odd at first but it does maintain the relationship between posts without the space being used up like a threaded system. I like the colour coding too. It's particularly nice for admins adding a comment as your comment stands out. I'd also like to see that extended to users so that their comments could be tagged in a different colour so they can instantly see their own comments when visiting a thread. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Mike N. <mh...@us...> - 2005-05-03 15:37:19
|
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 05:00, Matthew McNaney wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:02 +0200, Ren=C3=A9 C. Kiesler wrote:
> > If you remove the nesting here, you don't have any chance of following =
the
> > discussions.=20
>=20
> Then I believe we should ask "why" flat view is not conducive to
> following discussions. What are some different subsets of the flat view
> that would allow this?
Matt,
People naturally follow threads. It's ingrained in our communication.
The problem is HTML doesn't provide a good way to represent threaded
discussions. NNTP does, but not many hosting providers make that service
available to their clients.
GMANE has a few different views of mailing lists they archive.
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.leaf.user
Pear Net_NNTP package
http://pear.php.net/package/Net_NNTP
Google Groups has another way of displaying things. They got a lot of
flack when they changed to this new style.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc?hl=3Den
Personally, I prefer an NNTP client. HTML isn't designed for discussion.
--=20
Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net>
http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/
SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs
|
|
From: Daniel H. <da...@he...> - 2005-05-03 16:24:56
|
On May 3, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Mike Noyes wrote: > The problem is HTML doesn't provide a good way to represent threaded > discussions. I'm just a lurker, but I'm not sure I'm following the discussion (oh, the irony). Is the issue that the data is difficult to store and query in a nested view or that presenting the nested data via HTML a problem? Seems to me that if the data is stored with a key structure that allows the generation of a tree map, that just walking the map node-by-node and generating a flat list of <div/> tags is sufficient structural markup. Presentation-ally, classing each div with its nested-ness should make styling a cinch. And if you wanted to get freaky-creative, you could give each div an id attribute that represents its node and its parent (eg <div id="6_3"> represents the 6th entry whose parent is the 3rd), and then use DOM scripting to construct the view/presentation this way. -daniel |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-03 15:52:18
|
On 3 May 2005, at 16:39, Mike Noyes wrote: > > Personally, I prefer an NNTP client. HTML isn't designed for > discussion. > That's mixing how discussions are stored with how they are displayed really. I've no objections to storing comments in an NNTP store but ultimately you still have to display them in HTML and allow people to discuss using a web browser interface. Allowing access via an NNTP client directly is nice too although commercially it would be a disaster for some sites allowing users to bypass any revenue generating adverts or content. NNTP clients make threaded discussion viable because they run fast and native on the client OS. That's tricky to do in a web browser unless you implement it with XMLHttpRequest and Javascript aka AJAX otherwise you've got multiple page reloads when navigating threads. There's certainly more we could do to open up the interfaces in phpWebSite to other protocols other than HTTP, such as Atom, XML-RPC or NNTP but at the heart of it you've got to have a good browser side experience. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Mike N. <mh...@us...> - 2005-05-03 16:40:57
|
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:52, Shaun Murray wrote:
> On 3 May 2005, at 16:39, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > Personally, I prefer an NNTP client. HTML isn't designed for
> > discussion.
>
> That's mixing how discussions are stored with how they are displayed
> really. I've no objections to storing comments in an NNTP store but
> ultimately you still have to display them in HTML and allow people to
> discuss using a web browser interface.
Shaun,
I indicated a preference for NNTP client over an HTML browser. Both are
clients for display/interaction.
> Allowing access via an NNTP
> client directly is nice too although commercially it would be a
> disaster for some sites allowing users to bypass any revenue
> generating adverts or content.
I submitted this SF RFE a while ago to address that very issue.
NNTP PHP Web Interface
https://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=1072029
> NNTP clients make threaded discussion viable because they run fast
> and native on the client OS. That's tricky to do in a web browser
> unless you implement it with XMLHttpRequest and Javascript aka AJAX
> otherwise you've got multiple page reloads when navigating threads.
Correct. It's a big waste of bandwidth, and a kludge. Unfortunately,
NNTP got a bad reputation from USENET. :-(
> There's certainly more we could do to open up the interfaces in
> phpWebSite to other protocols other than HTTP, such as Atom, XML-RPC
> or NNTP but at the heart of it you've got to have a good browser side
> experience.
Agreed.
--
Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net>
http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/
SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs
|
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X