[om-list] What I feel from your writings

[Luke A. Call]

On 2021-04-29 00:18:32+0300, Jean Louis <bugs at gnu.support> wrote:
> * Luke A. Call <contact at lukecall.net> [2021-04-28 20:48]:
> > Hi Jean.  Thanks for your emails.  
> > 
> > I don't use more styling on my web site(s) (at least at lukecall.net),
> > given the idea that the content is a document, and the user's browser
> > defines how they want to see documents, bullet lists, etc.  That (I
> > think; not an expert) also lets vision-impaired users or others, for
> > example, specify the fonts they want, different color schemes, or
> > whatever helps them read, once, and all sites would then conform.
> 
> Readability is important. Making it work on mobile devices is
> important. It is easy, I will help you. I like to keep styling to
> minimum, but must enable it for all devices. Today 50% of people read
> with mobile devices.

But what do you think about it being set better at the browser level?
I haven't explored if that can be done, or how, but it makes sense to
me. Certainly in some cases like for the blind, but I don't know if
adding CSS for spacing or such, makes any difference good or bad.  I
might be willing to try some if you suggest, but probably not JS.

> > Also at that site you hopefully can find where I describe the what/why
> > of how OM's internals are structured (using postgres, but I would
> > like to move to sqlite later; health slows me much, currently).

> That would disable possible collaboration. It is antifeature.

I think if you read more on the site you'd understand better how things
are intended to work.  The database layer is not where the sharing of
knowledge should happen, rather the DB is only where the decomposed
knowledge is stored.  PG dissuades many users due to having to manage
their own install, upgrades, config etc.  
 
> > I want to reduce knowledge to something like an atomic level, where
> > words are a superstructure only, with the words etc being
> > changeable, even if the knowledge itself does not change.
> 
> That would become universal language probably planetary
> understandable. Problem is in how to express such knowledge as it
> sounds like recursive loop. If that type of knowledge is base and word
> is superstructure like on higher level, how and in which form would
> knowledge be described...

I think again, if you read more on my http://onemodel.org site, it
explains more.  Pls do. :)
 
> > How did you find my site(s) and OM?

> I found it maybe from your article on other site, I am researching all
> note taking applications.

What other site? Thanks.

-L