On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 01:41:50PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: > > On May 8, 2008, at 12:11 PM, The Anarcat wrote: > > > From what I can see, the main problem you're seeing now is the > > structure. In my opinion, this is more related to the Wiki paradigm > > than > > to the engine itself, so I would refrain from switching engines until > > that question is clearly discussed and resolved. > > (skipping most of your informative points that I don't have a response > for)
(I hope they were useful anyways. :)
> Well, if "wiki" means editable by anyone, then you could easily have
> structure and still fit that requirement. If "wiki" means chaos, then
> sure
While I'm not sure I'm bringing any value to this thread anymore, i
can't help but to answer to this...
Wiki is not only "editable by anyone", at least not in my view. It also
involves quick-to-build websites (namely through easy creation of pages
just by linking to it). But that definition varies with tools and
people. Even the wiki people can't agree clearly on what the basic
requirements for a wiki are.
Point is: the structural issue you're pointing out are present in most
"wiki" engines out there and it's only when you go into more formal
software setups that you cross that hurdle.
> > Do we have the people to maintain a parallel "book" version of the
> > ad-hoc documentation?
>
> I doubt it, and any kind of parallel track would always be complicated.
>
> Probably the book isn't going to quite work, because of this.
Therefore, a docbook approach is a bad idea, sorry for bringing it up.
:)
A.
--
Conformity-the natural instinct to passively yield to that vague something
recognized as authority.
- Mark Twain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
