>Resent-Date: 13 May 2000 07:23:36 -0000 >Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; >Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 03:22:31 -0400 >From: John Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [Brainstorm] Output Wikis >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Importance: Normal >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/19729 >X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Hi all, > >I was wondering if you could help me brainstorm an idea I just had. I was >reading Ron Jeffries' book, online at the http://www.xprogramming.com site. >So, reading his book, although the references are all currently screwed up, >I came up with the idea of an output wiki. > >An output wiki would be like a regular wiki in just about every respect. >You type stuff in according to formatting rules, everyone gets to >participate, and stuff. But, each page has an owner, and there are "root" >pages. Root pages are like tables of contents, and whenever someone starts >an e-book, he adds (and owns) a root page. He can choose other editors as >well. So can the Wiki administrator. > >The first thing the person does is write the part of the e-book he wants to >write. He then publishes that bit, and adds it to the root page. From then >on, it looks and acts like a regular Wiki. The major difference is that the >root page has an option to format and output a book (in postscript, html >help, TeX, or whatever). > >While the thing is being built, most wiki pages won't be added to the root >page. And most comments won't become part of the book text. The editors >get to choose what parts of the Wiki get elevated to the status of book >text. They do this by adding links to the root, and by modifying the pages >themselves. > >By convention, the comments stay on the Wiki, always. Also, there is a >signature/reference format for people to sign their comments. This way, as >the book develops its form, the people who contributed can be recognized. >So, if the *Do it in a workspace* page has a comment by Kent Beck, saying, >"I also like to write code in the debugger," when that comment gets elevated >Kent's attribution does too, and when the book is printed he's in the >reference section. Also, those people who commented without their words >being elevated will show up in the acknowledgements section. > >The outputter does some trickery based on the style of output. For example, >if the thing outputs MIF format files, then they will have the hyperlinks >defined for screen viewing and they will have "(see page n)" references as >well. If the thing outputs straight HTML, then it will only have the >hyperlinks. If it outputs Postscript, it'll only have the "(see page n)" >references. All of these references can be indexed. > >Sometimes, a page shouldn't be elevated to root status, but it is a >definition or something. In those cases, special formats can be created, in >the when-you-need-it style. > >So, I'm looking for more brainstorming, in case anyone has some ideas or, >perhaps, in case people think I'm barking up the wrong tree. > >-John -------------------------- Mark Guzdial : Georgia Tech : College of Computing : Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 Associate Professor - Learning Sciences & Technologies. Collaborative Software Lab (404) 894-5618 : Fax (404) 894-0673 : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Faculty/Mark.Guzdial.html
