I would strongly recommend not pursuing this. Docbook requires an incredible amount of tags, that just aren't part of any wiki markup.
And it isn't really a question of Formal vs Informal, is it? I think the issue that you are really looking at should be, "Does Media Wiki support a static export of a Wiki, in an arbitrary format." You have to decide at what point you are going to fork the static branch, and then format it for printing, as the wiki structure very closely corresponds to a web paradigm. If you are looking for collaborative methods of producing printed works, I would check into an Editorial Workflow System. (Forget Wiki). Editorial workflow systems are great in this regard because they separate the layout and design, from content creation, such that they can each have separate workflows. Personally, I would choose to refer everyone to the wiki itself for documentation. (Call the wiki the formal documentation). Or, as an alternative, a static html export of the wiki would work. Cheers, Brian P.S. - Personally, I think the days of referring to hard copy manuals are finally coming to a close. The information covered is changing to rapidly, and the shelf life of those documents is becoming so short, that they are not really worth producing. On 5/24/07, Paul Monday <paul.monday at sun.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on a project that requires a "formal" documentation set, but we > want to develop it collaboratively on a Wiki (I believe Genunix uses > MediaWiki, we are also on it). The end goal should be DocBook for the formal > documentation to get additional formatting and translation. > > I'm curious if anyone has explored MediaWiki markup to DocBook translation? > > Thanks, > Paul Monday > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > docs-discuss mailing list > docs-discuss at opensolaris.org >
