a few days
May. 12th, 2009 11:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marnanelOn Saturday we went to help a friend of ours move house; then we went and ate at a diner called Tom Jones, which was rather good really. On Sunday we went and played D&D again at Bae's house; my elven cleric used up several saving throws against dying in battle. And today I made dinner: it was spaghetti.
The Mutter maintainers have decided that Mutter will henceforth be a proper fork of Metacity and that the projects will go their own ways. This means, of course, that Metacity will not ship as standard in GNOME 3. I am wondering what should happen to Metacity now; I have a couple of branches to merge, and then I think I would really rather work on Mutter than carry on with a project that practically nobody will use. It would be good to work with a team of others again, too: I've been mostly alone on Metacity for a while now.
I have modified the Shavian wiki so that the metadata is held on article pages instead of talk pages. It looks like this. I have been discussing some ideas about this wiki with some people, and I am wondering whether it would be generally more useful if the data was held in IPA format and the Shavian text was produced using a transformation on that data, just as Unifon and so on are now. I am also wondering whether allowing anonymous editing would increase participation enough to be worth the risk of vandalism.
The Mutter maintainers have decided that Mutter will henceforth be a proper fork of Metacity and that the projects will go their own ways. This means, of course, that Metacity will not ship as standard in GNOME 3. I am wondering what should happen to Metacity now; I have a couple of branches to merge, and then I think I would really rather work on Mutter than carry on with a project that practically nobody will use. It would be good to work with a team of others again, too: I've been mostly alone on Metacity for a while now.
I have modified the Shavian wiki so that the metadata is held on article pages instead of talk pages. It looks like this. I have been discussing some ideas about this wiki with some people, and I am wondering whether it would be generally more useful if the data was held in IPA format and the Shavian text was produced using a transformation on that data, just as Unifon and so on are now. I am also wondering whether allowing anonymous editing would increase participation enough to be worth the risk of vandalism.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-13 09:45 am (UTC)Ooh, I think I like that.
Especially the Androcles information -- when I was entering lots of data, knowing what was canonical when I looked for similar words was very useful. Seeing an active talk page link was a good clue that the word was probably in Androcles (since most talk pages existed only to document this), but wasn't a sure-fire thing. Having that information on the article page is good, I think.
I am wondering whether it would be generally more useful if the data was held in IPA format and the Shavian text was produced using a transformation on that data, just as Unifon and so on are now.
What advantage do you see for this?
If there is a 1:1 mapping between Shavian and IPA (as, presumably, you would need), it doesn't really matter which is the underlying representation, does it?
And if it's not 1:1, then there will be IPA entries which cannot be converted to Shavian. (Or not correctly.) I'm not sure whether this is desirable for a Shavian wiki.
If it's a generic "spelling reform" wiki, then this may be less important; there will always be edge cases where automatic conversion doesn't quite work, if only because different reforms typically presuppose a different phoneme system. (Compare, say, Deseret with Unifon with Shavian.)