[Paul_Robert_Ll]Out of interest, where do these updates appear? Was thinking https://indieauth.spec.indieweb.org but that’s showing the previous content. Is there a release process to update that spec with any changes and cut a new version?
[Paul_Robert_Ll]It’s confusing, as the GitHub repo (https://github.com/indieweb/indieauth) links to https://indieauth.spec.indieweb.org, the updates in the repo show changes to the specification text… and none of the changes are publicly visible, as far as I can tell. Am a bit confused what’s changing, and where!
[tantek]re: "the updates in the repo show changes to the specification text" <-- that's not what I see, the "source" directory (for indieauth net) says "revise summary, change mention of public clients", wheraes the "spec" directory shows no changes for 2 years
LoqiIt looks like we don't have a page for "notation" yet. Would you like to create it? (Or just say "notation is ____", a sentence describing the term)
capjamesg[d]"We discovered that if we arranged those tricks in just the right way, they fell into a pattern. There was an underlying, unsuspected structure. As long as you had the courage to leave gaps. And this goes back to things like the Periodic Table, when Mendeley was writing down all the elements"...
capjamesg[d]The declarations in HTML (nav, section, header, body) feel relatively natural after learning what they do and having a bit of context on layout design.
[qubyte]Notation as a tool is very prevalent in the sciences. For example, Dirac notation hides very ugly integrals and is far easier to reason about. There’s an entire branch of maths about it.
[Joe_Crawford]If I'm following what you're talking about, James, then I feel compelled to mention the book _Gödel, Escher, Bach_ which is a great book I've not looked at in a long time but I've reread a few times long ago. I don't think I have a copy anymore. Anyway, gets into organizing knowledge and communicating that knowledge. It feels adjacent anyway. Apologies if it takes you off the path you and Tantek are thinking of.
[Joe_Crawford]That's a fair critique - it fits a lot of how my brain works - it was particularly useful to me when the web was new to me, as each new idea would drive me to look up new other concepts - in linguistics, library science, mathematics.
capjamesg[d]With that said, it feels like I can reason with a concept and connect it to something I understand -- like the context of a broader problem in text analysis -- more easily in code.
[tantek]code notation is essentially 1-dimensional, linear, which makes it simpler to parse. mathematics notation is 2-dimensional which makes it harder to "parse" like where do you start. so that makes sense capjamesg[d]
[tantek]the only exception is languages that depend on space characters for semantics like line breaks, like python which is like 1.5d, not quite fully 2-dimensional
[tantek]btw in sharing that Wikipeda page of notation systems, I noticed one was missing, Rubik's cube moves notation, so I went and found it, fixed a redirect, and add a new notation system to the page of notation systems!
[tantek]it's quite satisfying to find a very fixable "hole" like that in Wikipedia and be able to immediately edit save to fix it. No Git(hub) "create a fork" BS, no "Create a patch / pull request" ceremony, no prompted TWO text fields to provide BOTH a summary and a description of the edit, no stupid buttons that say "Merge" or "Squash & Merge" (why?!? so much plumbing BS that the authoring use-case doesn't care about), no "Delete fork" ceremonial
[tantek]also blows me away that there are developers (most?) who feel so comfortable with the ceremonial steps of Git(Hub) but are afraid to edit Wikipedia. like wat
[Joe_Crawford]The Notation page doesn't mention UML diagramming. Though the only thing in UML I find distinct enough to really "count" as a new kind of notation are sequence diagrams.