[pmwiki-users] New PmWiki Features Page . . .

Ben Wilson dausha at gmail.com
Sun May 28 11:51:58 CDT 2006

"Wanted" sounds a little off to me. Allow me to fish around for a
better set . . .

"Featured", "Plug-in" and "Unsupported"? Or "Built-In", "Plug-in" and
"Not Yet"? I like the latter because it is brief. The word geek in me
also likes the fact that all three terms are two syllables.

Obviously, I'm not wed to the exact terminology. I believe a good
up-front disclaimer along the lines of what you said is worth having.
Assume we agree to use "Not Yet" for the "No" features. In the
beginning we say "Not yet: This feature is not yet implemented by
PmWiki because there has not been enough interest by the Community to
create a suitable plug-in."


On 27 May 2006 11:34:14 +1200, John Rankin <john.rankin at affinity.co.nz> wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 May 2006 3:03 AM, Ben Wilson <dausha at gmail.com> wrote:
> >This email is a bit long, but I respond to three fellows. Better than
> >three emails, methinks.
> >
> ><snip>
> >Do we stay with "Yes," "Plug-in", "No" only?
> A problem with "Yes" and "No" is that they can be interpreted as
> "Yes" = "good" and "No" = "bad". I suggest instead:
> PmWiki Feature
> Plug-in Feature
> Plug-in Wanted
> The implied message is that the reason there is no plug-in
> for a particular feature is because so far nobody has needed it
> enough to write one.
> I support the use of plug-in rather than recipe; it's the way
> I describe it to people too, for the reasons noted.

More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list