Talk:AviSource
From Avisynth
[edit] Filter definition format
Using block-text for the filter definition at the start of the filter may look more eye-pleseant, but IMHO interferes semantically with the typical use of block-text in this wiki which is to provide code snippets. Thus, another convention should be used for the filter definition.
The most simple one is bold text and use of <br> in multiline definitions to force close line grouping so that they do not look as normal text. We could also use the <span>...</span> markup, for example:
AVISource(...)
AviFileSource(...)
WavSource(...)
to have a different color for the definition text. Place your opinions! Gzarkadas 13:56, 26 January 2006 (EST)
I prefer the purple text, and I think it's good that it has a different color than the stuff in the main text. I also replaced the ''' on every line with <b> tags. It's less typing :) Wilbert 15:24, 26 January 2006 (EST)
Can we use style= "definition" or style = "filter definition" or something of this sort rather than "colour: purple"? That way the look is easily changeable without making nonsense of "color: purple". Alternatively, could we use some kind of template in the way that Foxyshadis has done here User:Foxyshadis/FilterTest?--Clouded 06:43, 27 January 2006 (EST)
- The templates were a bit of an experiment, I'm not sure how successful since they're very rigid in 1.5 (1.6 enables default parameters and all that jazz). That's why I don't have one for the function definition, which I really wanted. I made named and unnamed versions, the named are a lot of typing, the unnamed less than terribly clear... Still an idea though. User:Foxyshadis/FilterTest The upside is better consistency and easy style application, the downside is dependencies and syntax.
- Oh, and unlike XML, it's a pain or impossible to include fulltext (with links, tables, etc) in template arguments.
- I definitely like the whole abstract box though. Maybe some more styling, but it nicely encapsulates a lot of basic information, whereas the others don't have a whole lot of added value yet. Foxyshadis 06:51, 27 January 2006 (EST)
Yes, the solution seems to be templates; they are a pain to implement but they allow modularity and easy upgrades/changes. I have started some attempts (see my personal wiki page) and hopefully I will soon end up with someting usable and standardised enough.
For the moment, since the main task is to transfer all documentation from the old wiki to the new one I suggest we use a simple solution; the only information the old wiki has into is the definition. Later we can add as much information and style enhancements as we like (with an additional template or modifying the existing ones).Gzarkadas 15:19, 31 January 2006 (EST)
- I finally ended up in a solution; I already have applied it to all internal filters contained in the wiki, to see it under different contexts. See also my user page for links to associated templates and a discussion of how / why selections were made. Note that one can now easy play with the actual style of all filter's definitions in a single page Template:Style_FuncDef_Inline.
- Comments and feedback are appreciated. In any case I believe that templates is a must; we should apply them to other parts of the documentation also. The User:Foxyshadis examples present nice ideas, I will examine them closely. Gzarkadas 18:22, 31 January 2006 (EST)
- I think those brackets are rather distracting for filters with a dozen or two arguments. Either the C way (LimitedSharpen) or the natural way (AviSource). Maybe we could use different colors, but I dunno about that. Foxyshadis 10:09, 6 February 2006 (EST)
