- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:48:18 +0200
- 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