in reply to Re^3: Improving CPAN using Google sidewiki
in thread Improving CPAN using Google sidewiki

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on Re^4: Improving CPAN using Google sidewiki

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Improving CPAN using Google sidewiki
by eric256 (Parson) on Sep 29, 2009 at 17:00 UTC

    I like the idea, but i'm a little annoyed by google on this one. First of all I use firefox 2 and 3, chrome and IE on multiple different computers. Three home computers, a laptop and a work computer. So in order to see this added content I have to install a toolbar on all of these and I don't install googles toolbars ever. The fact that it doesn't work in Chrome, googles own browser, is even more annoying. So while I think the idea is great, the implementation is certainly a no go for me and I'd bet others as we wont have the right toolbar and/or browser installed at all the places that it would be usefull.

    Instead of all this, could we get CPAN updated to include the sidewiki gadget in some way? Maybe a good group of beta users could use the toolbar, add some content and then convince the powers that be to add the widget? I dunno. I do appreciate your zeal and zest though, it is nice to see someone this passionate about it all!

    Eric Hodges
Re^5: Improving CPAN using Google sidewiki
by StommePoes (Scribe) on Oct 05, 2009 at 10:44 UTC
    And, until google ports it to Safari, they can use Firefox.

    Dictating which browser someone must use in order to use an open project smells terribly wrong. "You can take this road but only if you drive a Ford. Don't like Fords? Can't use one? No access." (might be a poor analogy but I'm pretty picky about my browsers and what I install on them)

    It is deceitful and wrong to say sidewiki is not cross-browser -- as a terminology nazi you should know this. It ran on two browsers in the initial release!!!

    To me, "cross-browser" means all major modern browsers, though often I'll even include Lynx in that. In the web-dev world, that's what it means.

    Just because it doesn't run on your closed-source proprietary browser of choice, doesn't mean it is "dead in the water."

    Sorry it seems like I'm nit-picking, but the only closed-source browser I can think of listed by others would be Opera (which is otherwise rather awesome and surely the preferred browser of some monks?). Web-kit is open-source, KHTML is open-source, even Chrome is open-source. But that aside, requiring a 3rd-party plugin and Registering with tehGoogles (do I get a star on my shoulder with that?), if this were the only way to access this, makes the internet-hippy in me look twice.

    Where are the browser stats for perlmonks or Lets show up, we apparently require more data to determine if the costs (more work for OSX users), is worth the gain less work for Firefox/Explorer and soon Chrome users.

    Why not some progressive enhancement? Those with certain browsers and tools can use the "better way" while still allowing access to all? Why block access to some? Browserstats are always suspect. Look how often Opera has to masquerade its user-agent id as "Internet Explorer" to prevent getting borked by sites who do browser-sniffing (which have lately been puking on "Opera 10", as sniffers haven't been trained to read a two-digit browser version number and think it's "Opera 1").