This is a very interesting idea. I like its simplicity, although I’m afraid we'll run into lots of issues where we'd have to recreate stuff ourselves that are already supported by the major wiki frameworks. Some comments below: On Jun 12, 2013, at 16:26, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com> wrote: > Sends a very strong signal that this is a community-owned endeavor A stronger message than the current site being a wiki? Why? > Being able to clone the wiki for offline consumption is nothing to sneeze at. I can't tell you the number of times I've been hacking something together on a plane and gotten frustrated from having to go off of my memory of which CSS values I can give for a property or something This is incredibly important and a selling point, as I've never seen a web dev reference with that capability. > We want people to actively participate in the wiki. Requiring people to log in is already a huge barrier; compared to that, requiring folks to know git, clone the repo, and issue a pull request seems like an impossibly high barrier Github has a pretty sweet API, which is even CORS-enabled (except authentication). We could possibly automate this, and have an app where people could use their Github credentials to log in and it would let them make edits and send the pull request behind the scenes. Most of it could be client-side too, and of course, it would also be included in the repo for folks to send pull requests to! So meta :) > No transclusion ability (no templates) That’s a pretty serious one. Perhaps we could do it manually, somehow? My own question is, would this cause any issues with searching? Cheers, Lea
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 14:25:04 UTC