My goal is to try to understand the Why's better.
This is the first time I've attempted to do a PatternLanguage for a large meme. I'm finding it a lot harder then I thought it would. I suspect that what will happen is that when I'm done I'll have to start all over and refactor it. Only then can it really approach the quality of a ChristopherAlexander pattern language.
I wanted to do follow the pattern language format of http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/anatomy.html which is:
That has been too hard to do at my stage of understanding so I've found myself collapsing this down to:
The first place I've started is looking in depth at various facets of TextFormattingRules in:
One interesting choice I made here was to separate LinkFormattingRules? from CharacterFormattingRules, and PageStructureRules? from ParagraphStuctureRules?. I felt that links, although a form of inline character style, were very different then things like emphasis. I also felt that formatting such as pagerules and headers were more about meta-content rather then content itself, so I separated that out too.
One useful thing that I've discovered is that by surveying the features of different Wiki variants, I can get a feel for how successful different solution memes are, which can give some clues as to the problems, solutions, and issues to solutions. For instance, Ward's initial wiki had an approach to Definition Lists that basically failed to propogate into any of the variants, but his approach to Unordered Lists survived to exist in many variants.
However, this feature survey approach breaks down for features that were not in the original Wiki. For instance, Ward's first wiki didn't have headings, which means there is a huge amount of variation in how headings are done in Wiki variants.
I've gotten kind of stalled on this project -- still need to do the rest of the PageStructureRules? and the hardest one, LinkFormattingRules?. Part of my stall is that I keep finding myself digging into various more 'modern' wiki variants and finding interesting stuff. For now I'm going to push these into a catch-all AdvancedWikiFeatures?.
features aren't patterns. This page does really address neither of them.
I agree that features are not patterns, but a study of features is a great way to discover patterns. For instance, I'm facinated by the three major forces behind TextFormattingRules: having the text be readable (i.e. StructuredText), having the text be easily editable (original wiki), and have the output be powerful (every weird variant of table rules, for instance.) -- ChristopherAllen
But if I had not taken the time to understand the various TextFormattingRules, I'd not have understood the tension between the three patterns that conflict with one other. I have not seen anyone else articulate that there is EasilyEditableText? vs GoodLookingCanonicalText? vs GoodLookingWebPages?. I'm not saying that all patterns can be discovered this way, but many interesting hidden ones can be found. Also recognize that I'm focused on DesignPattern? rather then UsagePattern?. The SandBoxPattern is more of a UsagePattern?, and is currently independent of any design implementation. -- Christopher Allen
I agree that patterns come from both design and use -- I just find that I come from the DesignPattern? side easier.
But I don't understand why you can't find patterns in the kinds and types of markup, and I think you are just wrong about "hardly influence what's interesting with wikis". I recently tried to set up a wiki for a group, and it was exactly these tensions between EasilyEditableText? vs GoodLookingCanonicalText? vs GoodLookingWebPages? that caused problems (among other things). Some people needed the text to be very easily editable (mainly new and inexperienced users). Others wanted the "text" to look good, and got frustrated by it (typically more programmer types), and others wanted the web pages to look good and were constantly trying to find various TextFormattingRules to get it to do what they wanted, but when they were done the other two types of people had problems. Studying TextFormattingRules is only a small start at looking at 100s of design elements of wikis, but without that study I think you are missing a major possible source of patterns.
In any case, please don't knock my approach to finding patterns -- I encourage you to keep working on yours. They don't need to be tightly integrated togehter yet -- first discover them, document them, then integrate them. -- ChristopherAllen
Yes, why not. I just think that the understanding of simple technical systems doesn't need a pattern language. Characters like "d" and "b" also seem to follow a "pattern". But a character pattern language - even if it were possible in the spirit of CA - wouldn't help us with creating arguments or literature. Sometimes I hate this MeatballMantra, but I predict: "that won't work". -- HelmutLeitner