[om-list] What I feel from your writings

[Jean Louis]

* 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 think I know the concept you are referring to. Do you mean that each
browser can have its own style sheet and thus make it nicer or more
readable?

If that is the concept you refer to, I know it, some browsers however
have that option.

Here is good tip, add this to your HTML:

  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

That enables your website to be readable on mobile devices, I guess
50% or 100% or current visitors will be able to read it on mobile
devices. Search engines may use that tag to rather rank the website by
its readability on mobile devices.

See the attached screenshots, without the tag and with the tag from my
mobile device.

The version where you can see small letters is rather "desktop"
version, has to be increased by using fingers, which means every page
has to be increased to be readable, and it is still not readable.

> 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.

I do not use Javascript neither. I have taken it completely out of any
websites.

The default style sheets in many browsers is not really readable.

I suggest you see this page:

Big Mother Fucking Website
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

It has a minimum CSS:

<style type="text/css">body{margin:40px
auto;max-width:650px;line-height:1.6;font-size:18px;color:#444;padding:0
10px}h1,h2,h3{line-height:1.2}</style>

But now when looking into your page I can find you are linking to the
CSS. I did not look into it. But I did try your page without your CSS
and I find it slightly more readable.

But then if I include the above short CSS, it becomes so much more
readable!

Look here at example:

http://rcdrun.com/files/tmp/onemodel.html (link will expire)

> > > 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 wish I could understand that. I mentioned PostgreSQL rather in the
context of being multi user and thus multiple users could be building
knowledge together while using software as a client.

It also allowed access to private databases on public servers or
private servers over the VPN. It means you can manage the knowledge on
distance without storing it on each device locally.

> > > 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. :)

I do, and did read. Not that I understood everything, that may ned
more time. How I understood it, you are making relations. Concept is
similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_triple and also
mentioned here by Karl Voit: https://karl-voit.at/2020/05/19/RelFS/

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

It was in my dynamic knowledge repository system, the one similar
knowledge base as yours. At least my full text search works well, it
was easy to find it:

OneModel — an Alternative to emacs org-mode
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/04/23/0149257

I have one good idea how to make PostgreSQL foundation for any kind of
relations in the sense of Semantic triplet.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/