W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: [admin] W3C Wiki migration

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:22:50 -0500
Message-Id: <F38CEFA6-B3FB-4036-B239-5185D1B43477@robburns.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, Olivier Théreaux <ot@w3.org>
To: Gregory J.Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>

On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

> while i share the views of ben, rob and philip about the loss of user
> accounts, modification histories, etc. upon migration of the HTML
> WG wiki, if we are to migrate, i would be in favor of MediaWiki, as
> long as the wiki administrator enables full support for HTML editing
> by setting
> $wgRawHtml = true;
> in: LocalSettings.php
> which would enable the use of HTML/XHTML markup, including important
> markup for table accessibility, acronym and abbreviation expansion,
> natural language switches, etc.

I wasn't aware of that capability of MediaWiki. I can't imagine why  
that wouldn't be the default. I just know on Wikipedia they allow  
some more HTML than other wikis but the still disallow ABBR and INPUT  
and other such elements (INPUT can be useful for just talking about  
or mocking up UI).

This would solve most of my objections to MediaWiki as long it kept  
all of the HTML as entered in a lossless way on the back-end.

> but the price of improving the WG's wiki must NOT entail losing the
> recorded history of the HTML WG wiki as it has developed, as that
> would defeat the entire purpose of having a wiki...

Perhaps, W3C could establish a new sub-domain for the new WIKI and  
leave the old WIKI in place. Or move the old wiki intact to a  
different subdomain and provide links between the two.

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 02:23:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC