Roland Mainz wrote: >Rainer Heilke wrote: > > >>I agree with the original contributor that XML is not a suitable path. >> >> > >Erm... "XML" would only be the "encoding" (like original HTML used >"SGML" until it got messed-up by suers relying on "relaxed-syntax" >parsers). The idea was to use DocBook which isn't more difficult to >learn than HTML or the MediaWiki syntax and in many cases it's much more >"effective" (except that you can't abuse tables for layout anymore >etc.). > > OK, correction accepted. However, DocBook still introduces either new tools or a learning curve to learn the new markup language. Let's not lose sight of what this FAQ is nor it's intended audience. I strongly doubt it will force a need for much more than text or simple tables. I may end up being proved wrong somewhere down the line, but I'm doubtful.
>What about running a background script every hour if the Wiki was >updated ? > > Whether every hour, or with each update, or whatever, it still requires scripting, server resources, etc. I'm not going to make assumptions about the server or it's load, the probable need to install new software, the admins' workload, etc. etc. Rainer
