Re: [glob2-devel] Wiki board

[martin . voelkle]

> > I think that wiki is not good for discussions. Because you have no way to
> > see that there's a discussion going on in a wiki page if you don't check
> > them all regularly. We should use this mailing list to discuss stuff,
> > that's much easier.
> 
> It depends the discussion. For task allocation and draft doc, even commented,
> it's cool. Some complexe discussion is better on ml. But discussion's results
> should be resumed and put on Wiki.

Actually, you can ask twiki to send you a mail when a topic changes (there 
might be even a way to get mail for more generic stuff).

It is much more friendly to have human-generated ml digests on the web than 
seeking through ml archives. That's how you build FAQs too. Wikis are often 
used for communications in extreme programming teams (don't ask me why).

> > I think that the manual (for eg.) should be fully written in xml docbook
> > and not in wiki. Because if people add stuff to the wiki version of the
> > manual we then have to extract each modification by hand and add it to the
> > docbook manual. It's the same for any other content that is aimed to be
> > integrated into the official documentation (docbook) or the website (olaf).
> 
> I agree totally here. Documentation source code is in CVS and final version
> should be on web site. Just ask me for CVS write access.

I began to port the manual to wiki's syntax such that anybody can edit it 
(it's much simpler than having to find a cvs client). But there might be an 
xslt plugin for wiki so edits would be with the docbook syntax.

> > That's the reason why it would be really great to have a wolaf (olaf wiki
> > feature), because the editor is fully generic, you can edit txt, olaf
> > syntax or xml docbook. And the top of the top would be an integration with
> > the savannah cvs, so that anyone could very easily edit and create any
> > document that were allowed for public access. There must be a way to
> > translate on the fly docbook to html (with xsl?), and thus the latest
> > version would always be availible online (such as for wiki or olaf). Thus,
> > it could even be possible to extend olaf to a docbook (or whatever xml)
> > syntax...
>
> The problem is : your average load is more than 3. So is it really worth to
> reimplement one more wiki as there is so many lying around ? At the end, it's
> your decision, because if you do it and it's good, we'll take it.

There might be some other wikis that use xslt and cvs (this feature I know 
there is; the problem is that if you search 'wiki cvs', you get their source 
code repositories). And with some plugins, it might be very easy to convert 
olaf's syntax to its equivalent xml (the reverse can be easily done with 
xslt). I'll check that.

> Note that I do not share your critics about wiki's syntax : it's simple yet
> functionnal.

It's made to be extremely easy and newbie friendly. And you can include html, 
too. I think Disney prefers xml-like constructions (although without xml 
syntax).

Martin