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

Re: [admin] W3C Wiki migration

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:48:18 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240674c2e8c7c08add@[192.168.0.101]>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, Olivier Théreaux <ot@w3.org>

At 14:23 +0900 UTC, on 2007-08-13, Karl Dubost wrote:

> I was discussing with Olivier Théreaux (W3C) this morning about the
> W3C wiki migration.

I was wondering if Dokuwiki has been considered. It is aimed specifically at
documentation projects. See  <http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:dokuwiki>.
(They offer a playground at <http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:playground>.) I
use it for a couple of projects and mostly like it.

pros:
- built-in versioning, compete with nice diffs
- generates a per page TOC (from heading levels)
- generates a wiki-wide TOC ("Index") ordered by namespace
- no database needed (purely PHP + flat files)
- not javascript-dependant
- decent ACL-based user management
- slightly different but very easy wiki syntax
- can be configured to allow users to enter HTML, and optionally even PHP
- besides allowing email based sibscription to changes, it also provides
those through RSS
- automatically marks up abbreviations + @title (based on an editable list of
known abbreviations)
- the default template generates pretty clean HTML, and quite nice screen and
print Style Sheets
- CamelCase link generation supported but not required

cons
- option to move pages not readily built-in (there's a decent third-party
plug-in, but that doesn't move the history along; does update all links
though)
- allowing users to enter HTML is a global option AFAIK; cannot be set per
user (same for PHP)
- nesting of wiki tags is not always possible (can't have a link within a
heading, for example); but since we all speak HTML here, that can probably be
overcome by simply allowing 'raw' HTML.
- wiki syntax' simplicity has its limitations (for example, I believe
mediawiki allows for much richer table creation -- then again, I find tables
in Mediawiki qute complicated -- much easier in Dokuwiki, and if you need
more, you just write pure HTML.)
- the built-in editor shows a "B" button that generates <em>. I've been
unsuccesful in convincing the authors that an exclamation mark would be more
appropriate.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 15:54:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC