On approximately 11/20/2003 2:13 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Aldo Calpini:
Erick Bourgeois wrote:
Great to see you back.
I installed and played with CGI::Kwiki. The main problem I have
with this module/application is that users need to learn the wiki
"language". (For example, to make a the H4 tag, you must put
4 = before and after the word(s).)
I am planning to use plain POD for the Kwiki, there will be no need
for wiki markup itself.
The benefit of the content manager I use is that it uses HTML and
thus it has no learning curve in this respect. May I ask what you
found to be difficult?
I've used it very little, but for example I seem to remember that making
a link from a page to another one was a little messy (since the pages
seem to be dinamically generated).
but above all, the main problem is that I don't want HTML
documentation, but rather POD that can be translated to HTML.
translating from HTML to anything else is more painful (not
impossible, but painful). and having the documentation in POD is
unarguably a benefit (think about perldoc, search.cpan.org, etc.)
Aldo, I really do believe this should help, otherwise it would be a bit
cumbersome to completly move away from this and transfer over to
CGI::Kwiki. But, like I said in an earlier post, if people really don't like
it, then I guess I could switch over to CGI::Kwiki.
so let's ask people what they prefer. I, personally, would go with
CGI::Kwiki with native POD format for editing. let's vote this and
decide :-)
I prefer HTML, because it is easy to make links, because I understand
it, and because it is a standard. I really should learn POD, though,
since it is native to Perl, which I use unless I have to use something
else. So I wouldn't complain about POD... so I guess my second choice
would be POD, because it is the native Perl documentation format, and
HTML can be produced.
I don't know anything about CGI::Kwiki or wikis in general, but I guess
they are collaborative editing things.... isn't CVS a collaborative
editing thing too? Granted CVS probably has a bigger learning curve
than a wiki (at least from what I've heard about wikis), but it provides
version control, compact storage of multiple versions, selectable
version retrieval, history, and trackability. Does a wiki provide all
those things too?
On the other hand, the current Win32::GUI seems to have a bunch of HTML
files for which I cannot find POD sources. Is this just because you
started in HTML before realizing the difficulties of translating it to
something else? Or are the POD files squirrelled away somewhere, and
not findable? Or? You are the only one that can tell us the history,
whether accidental, shameful, or well-intentioned but misguided :)
--
Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
===========================
Like almost everyone, I receive a lot of spam every day, much of it
offering to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It's ridiculous.
-- Bill Gates
And here is why it is ridiculous:
The division that includes Windows posted an operating profit of $2.26
billion on revenue of $2.81 billion.
--from Reuters via
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031113/tech_microsoft_msn_1.html
So that's profit of over 400% of investment... with a bit more
investment in Windows technology, particularly in the area of
reliability, the profit percentage might go down, but so might the bugs
and security problems? Seems like it would be a reasonable tradeoff.
WalMart earnings are 3.4% of investment.
