Thanks for the preemptive post, I was just about to send a note in
reply as a reminder. [*sad*] about the news though.
Quite honestly, if we were to re-think the use of MediaWiki, I would
consider the lack of a WYSIWYG editor a blocker to its adoption. It
prevents people from our ordinary
Hi,
I have to second Marc here, except for his comment on Silverstripe. I
realize a few people are used to the Mediawiki syntax (the languae and
formatting used without the WYSIWYG editor) but if we take it out we
will expect serious drops in productivity and contribution.
I would suggest we
Hi,
2012/10/5 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org:
I have to second Marc here, except for his comment on Silverstripe. I
realize a few people are used to the Mediawiki syntax (the languae and
formatting used without the WYSIWYG editor) but if we take it out we
will expect
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 10:47 +0200, Volker Merschmann a écrit :
Hi,
2012/10/5 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org:
I have to second Marc here, except for his comment on Silverstripe. I
realize a few people are used to the Mediawiki syntax (the languae and
Hi,
Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2012-10-05 10:35:
I would suggest we look at alternatives for a wiki platform.
we right now have about 3,3 GB of wiki data hosted in MediaWiki. I am
not sure if there is an easy migration path, even if there were a wiki
with a WYSIWYG editor, which I doubt
Hi Volker,
Le 2012-10-05 04:47, Volker Merschmann a écrit :
I don't think so.
The wiki is not intended to provide information to the wide public,
but as a working tool and pinboard for the contributors inside the
community.
Many of them are able to use the wiki-syntax which is not that hard
Hi Florian,
Le 2012-10-05 05:13, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi,
Marc Paré wrote on 2012-10-05 10:19:
Quite honestly, if we were to re-think the use of MediaWiki, I would
consider the lack of a WYSIWYG editor a blocker to its adoption. It
prevents people from our ordinary ranks to jump in
Le 2012-10-05 05:31, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
I'm definitely not suggesting there's an easy choice here. My (humble)
corporate experience in the matter, that does not deal with the
migration from Media Wiki , would point to FOSS Wiki (www.fosswiki.org)
but that's only an option, and it's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Unless our own LibreOffice MediaWiki extension has flaws, I don't
understand why it is not used as a viable alternative to a WYSIWYG editor.
But a small how0to connect it to our TDF MW will be a must.
Olivier
Em 05-10-2012 06:14, Florian
http://foswiki.org/
--
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
Ooops: http://www.foswiki.org
Best,
Charles.
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 06:26 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
Le 2012-10-05 05:31, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
I'm definitely not suggesting there's an easy choice here. My (humble)
corporate experience in the matter, that does not deal
Foswiki conversion extension for MediaWiki:
http://foswiki.org/Extensions/MediaWikiToFoswikiContrib
--
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
--
Unsubscribe
Hi,
Marc Paré wrote on 2012-10-05 12:36:
Foswiki conversion extension for MediaWiki:
http://foswiki.org/Extensions/MediaWikiToFoswikiContrib
if there's anything I'd like to avoid at ANY price, it's a migration to
a new wiki. We make heavy use of MediaWiki extensions, and migrating
that to
Hi,
Olivier Hallot wrote on 2012-10-05 12:34:
Unless our own LibreOffice MediaWiki extension has flaws, I don't
understand why it is not used as a viable alternative to a WYSIWYG editor.
But a small how0to connect it to our TDF MW will be a must.
that's a good point, indeed. I lack hands-on
Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 13:26 +0200, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi,
Olivier Hallot wrote on 2012-10-05 12:34:
Unless our own LibreOffice MediaWiki extension has flaws, I don't
understand why it is not used as a viable alternative to a WYSIWYG editor.
But a small how0to connect
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Foswiki conversion extension for MediaWiki:
http://foswiki.org/Extensions/MediaWikiToFoswikiContrib
if there's anything I'd like to avoid at ANY price, it's a migration to a
new wiki. We make heavy use of MediaWiki extensions, and
On 10/5/12 2:14 PM, C wrote:
- As Florian noted (and linked), there is a new WYSIWYG editor in
development. (works fine in Chrome on Linux by the way)
Works fine on Firefox and Chrome for MacOS
--
Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it
skype
Hi Charles,
2012/10/5 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org:
I have to second Marc here, except for his comment on Silverstripe. I
realize a few people are used to the Mediawiki syntax (the languae and
formatting used without the WYSIWYG editor) but if we take it out we
will
Le 2012-10-05 08:14, C a écrit :
This was one of the major reasons behind not migrating the OOo wiki (a
few years ago).
Some things that people are maybe not considering when they say that
WYSIWYG editor is a make/break for the LibreOffice Wiki:
- MediaWiki is not obscure. This is the Wiki
Hi,
Marc Paré wrote on 2012-05-03 20:39:
:(
hope we have a better solution at hand soon...
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger, Chairman of the Board
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
The Document Foundation, Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des
Le 2012-05-03 12:43, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Hi,
Florian Effenberger wrote on 2012-05-03 13:37:
:-)
Let's see how it works. Will wait with migration to 1.19 for some more
time anyways.
bad news everyone - it seems the editor simply breaks larger pages, or
makes them insanely slow to
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote:
Yes, the last we used was the FCKEditor and there were problems with keeping
wiki page edits stable enough to post.[1] I had used it quite a bit for
updating wiki pages (especially in the marketing section) and found that if
Hi Clayton
Le 2012-05-02 07:35, C a écrit :
FCKEditor messed up quite a lot actually. Back in the good old days
with the OOo Wiki, there were a lot of complaints about the editor
messing up pages - not breaking them so much, but messing up the
history/view changes because it would reformat
23 matches
Mail list logo
