Fred Drake wrote:
> On 10/11/05, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>- a ZWiki on a bare Zope 2 is set up within minutes
> A ZWiki as found on the current zope.org is unusable, so I'll presume
> you mean an up-to-date ZWiki, which I expect is much nicer.
>>Again (and I'm saying this again with the possibility of being stamped
>>as repitive): The last thing I need for writing proposals or posting
>>comments on the wiki is a WYSIWYG editor.
> Agreed. A WYSIWYG editor doesn't help, and makes the thing more
> fragile. I would hope a plain text editor would still be an option,
> even if we get stuck with HTML as the wiki markup (another point of
> contention, I suspect).
>>We've been writing STX for
>>years, maybe reST would be nice so that the proposal posted on the wiki
> If we don't have reST, then we haven't made any progress. Jim said a
> few years ago that reST would be the standard for Zope 3
> documentation, and few people have really picked up on that. That's a
> shame, because it's so much nicer and more predictable than STX. (It
> also doesn't get the indentation of code fragments wrong.)
> These opinions are my own, and have not been filtered through Jim. :-)
I love reST just as much as you do. Fortunately, ZWiki has been
supporting reST for a long time now, so no worries there. I agree that
an improved development home without reST support isn't improved at all.
Btw, I think that Zope 3 is doing pretty well wrt reST (not counting the
wiki pages for now). The only reST-ish but not fully reST-like file that
I can think of is CHANGES.txt. But I'm not going to reindent that
Zope3-dev mailing list