On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I am confused as to why we need a wiki. Labs is supposed to be for
internal projects by committers, whereas a wiki is best for
contributions
from the general public.
I would say, ease of content management. Writing in a textarea some
wikitext feels more efficient than writing HTML on your text editor
(or
structure-messing HTML editors) and then svn commit it in and then log
in and svn update it there and then wait.
Yeah, but I find the loss of off-line editing a major hindrance. YMMV.
A decent XHTML editing plugin for eclipse would solve that, except
that I don't use eclipse. *shrug*
I don't think it's about public access at all, in fact, I think none
here would be opposed to a publicly readable but only
committer-writeable wiki, sort of a content-management companion to
svn.
Well, that's what Confluence is being used for now.
That said, a wiki is only one way of solving the CM problem. Maybe
there
are others (protected web page using ajax/web_dav over svn
autoversioning mounted repo?)
Of all the wikis I've used, MediaWiki seems to be the best overall
if you don't mind the content being stored in MySQL.
Agreed. It's not only about the software itself, its about the
community
around it: as long as wikipedia is around, mediawiki will be actively
maintained and improved. Of all people, we should be the ones
understanding how important that is in the long run.
And maybe we can create a lab to have mediawiki store its content in
subversion instead ;-)
Right, or JCR. I don't think anyone would (or even could) object to
running a wiki for development purposes of one lab -- what people will
object to is running a wiki so that people outside of labs can
contribute
to all labs (including those that aren't interested in supporting a
wiki).
That would make it infrastructure, IMO.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
