Talk:Lossless comparison

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Lossless comparison article.

Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Use the forums instead. Please read the wiki policy before editing. Sign and date your posts using two dashes and four tildes (--~~~~). Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections). Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==. Feel free to use these smilies by embedding their codes: {{smiley|)}} {{smiley|D}} {{smiley|(}} {{smiley|;}} New to Hydrogenaudio Wiki? Welcome! You may want to read our wiki policy and frequently asked questions.

Why RKAU - not in test?? It is better then flac, and comparable to optimFrog!

Page discussion

Most of the discussion for this page is being done at the forum. You may use this talk page to discuss it too.--Beto 15:50, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

I updated slightly the formatting of this page and added some standard sections.--Beto 16:10, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Two questions that come to mind: (1) Is "transcompression" a commonly accepted term, and (2) Does transcompression affect tagging (and if so, how)?

methinks that

the colours on this page were decided by someone on LSD. Elliottmobilehttp://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/images/c/c1/Fishysig.PNG 12:32, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

BlaBlaTable

Table... nicer the lower one, no? --pepoluan (talk | contribs) 12:55, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

I'll stab whoever messed up my beautiful table in the eyes.

Why did you get rid of the color templates? Just to make it harder to edit the table?

What's the point of having to know hex codes by heart to set the call background? The older system was much more intuitive, and less bloated.

rjamorim - 11:44, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

Well, it was used in.... this page only, really, and if you used a real text editor you'd be able to automate it Elliottmobilehttp://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/images/c/c1/Fishysig.PNG 14:46, 24 September 2006 (CDT)

It was used in this page because there is no other real comparison table at the wiki, but that doesn't rule out usage in future tables. And as for real text editors: this page is for everyone to edit, not only arrogant people that take pride in using emacs or ultraedit or whatever. ~ rjamorim 15:52, 24 September 2006 (CDT)

*sigh* whatever you say, Roberto But I agree with Elliottmobile that the green is perhaps a bit too green .
Anyways, a vote: Get back to templates or not?

Additional note: Even if we decide to get back to templates, I suggest completely rewriting the color templates... they're waaaaaaaay too complex. What's wrong with a simple style="color:blablabla;"? --pepoluan (talk | contribs) 11:18, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

How come the templates are too complex? You find it hard to use {{ orange }}? And you find it EASIER to use hex color codes? I can't even remember the hex code for orange by heart! ~ rja

*sigh* Roberto, I wrote "the templates are too complex", not "using templates are too complex". In other words, what I'm trying to say (and I hope this gets into your thick skull :lol:j/k: ) is that we should simplify the templates. Comprende, RareJim? --pepoluan (talk | contribs) 12:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

First: I'll tell you later who is thick skulled.

Second: Why, pray tell, you want to simplify them? The colors are abstracted into templates precisely so that average editors don't have to worry about them. They are very adequate for table cell colouring, and that's what matters IMO. ~ rja

*sigh* I don't want to start another debate here. I'm just saying that, okay, if you want to use templates, we'll revert. But the templates themselves need to be simplified. Here, let me show you Template:Orange:

<nowiki></nowiki> ! align="right" style="background: #FF9900" |

What's the use for the <nowiki> pair there? And why align="right"? Both of them can go. The first one is useless, the second one can be put in the table's definition. Thus, we can (and should!) simplify Template:Orange to:

! style="background: #FF9900" |

Then again, we can simplify it to:

! style="background: orange" |

Then, since most of the colors are now standard HTML colorwords, why not put it directly into the table?

--pepoluan (talk | contribs) 12:09, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

If you don't want to debate, why did you even ask about the new table at the talk page?

About the <nowiki></nowiki> pair: that is a workaround to an issue Jan and I experienced on an earlier version of Mediawiki. If it's gone, all the better.

As for html colorwords: I don't trust browsers to stick to standards. I'd rather trust hex. ~ rja

Gee, it seems I must always use the most explicit, non-ambiguous sentences with you, Roberto. Alright, here goes.

I don't want to debate about "thick-skulled" or "complex templates" or such. Not like, um, "E" and "H" have been doing lately that is.

I just tried to fix the table in a way that cleans up the code, and IMO is cleaner and better than a template-hack.

Now about ^that (fixing the table), I want inputs from the wiki maintainers; as it seemed that some (at least, you) object to the removal of color-templates, I ask input whether to revert to template-based table, as previously. But I put in a note, if we do want to revert to the template-based table, the color-templates themselves needs to be cleaned.

--pepoluan (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

To me the second table is more readable than the original one. I agree with roberto that editing should be easy for anyone, however the syntax of tables in this wiki is not simple even if you use templates. Maybe we could create a section/article with some guidance on editing the this article's table?--Beto (talk | contribs) 09:24, 19 October 2006 (CDT)