sphinx-comments
meta
sphinx-comments | meta | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
20 | 122 | |
- | 2.5% | |
0.0 | 5.1 | |
about 1 year ago | 6 days ago | |
Python | ||
MIT License | - |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
sphinx-comments
-
Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS
https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 :
> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services ([executablebooks/sphinx-comments#14](https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-comments/issues/14) , [executablebooks/jupyter-book#861](https://github.com/executablebooks/jupyter-book/issues/861)). In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
meta
-
Certified 100% AI-Free Organic content
https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102
Re: fact checks, schema.org/ClaimReview, W3C Verifiable Claims, W3C Verifiable News & Epistemology: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15529140
-
Show HN: Arxiv.org on IPFS
https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 :
> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services ([executablebooks/sphinx-comments#14](https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-comments/issues/14) , [executablebooks/jupyter-book#861](https://github.com/executablebooks/jupyter-book/issues/861)). In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
What are some alternatives?
jupyter-book - Create beautiful, publication-quality books and documents from computational content.
lbry-desktop - A browser and wallet for LBRY, the decentralized, user-controlled content marketplace.
heron