-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Moin, On Tuesday 29 March 2005 21:09, Thomas Gries wrote: But that might not be the people who add/edit graphs on wikipedia :) <graph> does allow just the same: Please see: http://bloodgate.com/perl/graph/test.html#syntax_0240.txt <graph> # Clickable links and mouse-over titles: graph { linkbase: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ } node { autolink: label; autotitle: label; } [ Bonn ] --> [ Berlin ] </graph> :o) Best wishes, Tels - -- Signed on Wed Mar 30 19:29:53 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. "...pornographic images stay in the brain forever." -- Mary Anne Layden; "That's a feature, not a bug." -- God

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Moin Thomas, On Wednesday 30 March 2005 23:21, Thomas Gries wrote: Actually, it left me with quite a few wishes (not so awkward syntax, more pretty output, alternatives to grafical output, etc), and that is why I started to develop my own solution (which could use some more work, of course). I am not saying that graphviz is bad or should not be used - I am just saying that: * maybe a different syntax should be used to write the graphs * maybe different outputs of the final graphs than the (ugly in my opionion) images/graphic should be used Actually, I looked at the gallery, and these graphs do not appeal to me nor do I think the examples of the dot source code is self-explanatory, or fully intuitiv (sp?) to understand. I'll do that, one can only learn :) In the meantime I did look at quite a lot of graphs in manuals, TV, journals etc and quite a lot of them look completely different from the typical dot examples. I am sure with many massaging you could use dot to produce equal output, but from my POV dot looks like a tool from experts for experts - and most people editing/adding stuff to a wiki don't want to learn all the nitty-gritty details just to produce a 3-node pretty graph :) I really DO think that it would be a good idea to deploy such an extension on a testwiki first and let people toy with it - preferable with both extensions. After a while problems and shortcomings will emerge. Somehow I think that enabling the graphviz extension without any forethought or tests will end us up with a lot of (badly done) graphviz graphs. Finally, I think some more discussions from people actually wanting to add graphs to wikis would be good. I know that I use graphs for some things like networkplans, flowcharts etc and I have some plans to add features that make support for these types of graphs more easily. Hope that explains my POV a bit, Tels - -- Signed on Thu Mar 31 00:37:32 2005 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. "Call me Justin, Justin Case."