h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think the future of h2g2 should be GuideML free. It is pointlessly complicated and single-handedly deters people from writing more entries to the guide.

Compare h2g2's formatting to Wikipedia's. They have exactly the same result, but any idiot can go to Wikipedia and type something and it will turn out exactly like they wanted. Do the same thing of h2g2 and it won't have any paragraphs!

GuideML is just really annoying and seems really pointless. The first thing to go has to be that.

I don't think it is complicated at all. HTML is being taught in schools these days, and GuideML is a much simpler version of that.

Besides, it's not compulsory to write Edited Guide entries in GuideML. As long as they are well-written and interesting, we have Sub-editors who are glad to sort that sort of thing out.

B

"HTML is being taught in schools these days"

I'm at school... what school do you go to? IT college?

Well, I teach in one, as it happens. Just a normal comprehensive.

Our IT department teach HTML as part of the GCSE syllabus.

B

really? Well I managed to get 95% in my IT GCSE in Year 10 and I have no idea how HTML works. And I am definitely not a computer-slouch.

GuideML isn't complicated, nor have I ever heard about it being the sole reason why people don't write for the Guide.

Like I said in t'other thread h2g2 and Wiki are separate things and should stay that way.

Wikipedia's markup is entirely presentation-based. GuideML is intended to be more for semantic mark-up. Were we to abandon GuideML we'd lose all possiblity of making our Guide-Entries more semantically meaningful.

I must disagree with you Jim... you can be perfectly semantic without GuideML. It's the content that matters, not the format.

**decides not to pass comment on the phrase 'you can be perfectly semantic...'**

B

>> I must disagree with you Jim... you can be perfectly semantic without GuideML. It's the content that matters, not the format.

And I must disagree with you Deano.

Format makes the content more accessible. Ever since the 1940s, ie for over 60 years, the American Advertising Industry has been researching the impact of presentation (colour, typography, justification, etc etc etc) on retention. The evidence that people do read and remember stuff which is presented clearly, in a dark colour, on a light colour, with headers and subheaders, correctly spelled and accurately punctuated, is overwhelming.

Interestingly but irrelevantly it appears that Americans prefer introductions and conclusions which summarise the information, (tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them what you are telling them, tell them what you've told them), whereas Swedes find going backwards and forwards and backwards again confusing and prefer to be told something only once, but in a logical sequence.

Disagreements aside, you don't really need to understand GML if you use Brunel in Explorer to edit entries which are in GML. All those handy little buttons do it for you.

Incidentally, Jim, you know that it doesn't work in Firefox? Is that a Firefox bug and insurmountable or a Beeb one which has been un-tested, or un-fixed at any rate?

Ben

"Incidentally, Jim, you know that it doesn't work in Firefox?"

That's historical. When we first did Brunel, IE was the only browser that could properly handle the javascript. All other browsers could only append the tags to the end of the edit box. We haven't revisited that code since Firefox appeared. I'm sure we could make it work much better. It just needs some time from a client-side coder. It's not high up on the list to fix, though.

Fairy Nuff. I was more curious to know whether it was a Fireifox bug or a BBC one. It is fairly low down the list of things I'd like you to spend Hootoo's money on.

After all, it does work in Explorer.

Ben
PS, Jim, don'tcha 'ave no 'ome to go to?

From post 1...

>>> "but any idot can go to Wikipedia and type something" <<<

Probably true.



>>> "and it will turn out exactly like they wanted". <<<

Idots writing for idots? Wow! Something GuideML avails to the few.

"but any idot can go to Wikipedia and type something"

Like anything else, it's what you're used to. I look at wikipedia and it looks horribly complicated, so I never contribute anything, or want to make any changes.

At least if you know HTML a bit, you can get started with GuideML. Wikipedia is like nothing else I've ever seen!

If I'd found Wikipedia first (only I couldn't, because it didn't exist then), I'm sure I'd pick up GuideML quickly because I know (very, very basic) HTML.

well I guess that's fair enough Mina, but I felt the exact opposite... I found GuideML first through h2g2 but when (2 month ago) I found wiki it was just like being given Microsoft Word to type up a document. It was that simple.

GML, on the other hand, required a whole new way of looking at things. Obviously I can do it easily... I am 17 so I pick up most things... but it doesn't stop wiki being a standard (thus potentially simpler) format.

But then I've had no experience with HTMLs so I guess that makes a difference

What makes wiki a standard format? Surely that would require that the system or some variant thereof is used by the majority of websites.

Was that meant to read M$ Word is a standard?

I was looking at some message boards, and they support a simple formating with:- *bold* , /italic/ , and _underline_ .

I don't expect them to be implemented in h2g2 threads (however nice it would be to have on all dna sites), but possibly for a 'text' entry, to get people started on the idea of formatting?



Maybe even delt with by the GuideML parser? Would that make life simpler for the end user?



I do wonder how hard is it to type for example word and yet at the same time recall being asked to 'look' at peoples personal spaces, only to find why it's "broken" being a lack of closing a formating tag for the sake of "/" or they would put "" possibly confused by self-closing tags.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with GuideML per se, just that it needs to be made easier to use. Nobody takes issue with the entire Web running on HTML, do they? But they are quite happy to use tools to produce this stuff in the first place.

MS Word is "standard". It is simple, it is common, and it works. Well.

MS Word being the standard? Yes, sadly by dint of its distribution around the world it is. I wouldn't call it simple though, nor does it work well