Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday October 24, 2007

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> writes:
> 
> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday October 24, 2007
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:52:36 +0100
> 
> [...]
> 
> >            o PROPOSED: Documents to be edited using wiki markup  
> > 		facilities (templates, tex math, etc). Revisit if there
> > 		are problems. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Real TeX, with everything?  Just TeX?  I would miss LaTeX math stuff.  
> Is there a compact document on the capabilities we would be getting?

AMS LaTeX, as per:
      http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula

> Even so, I don't know if it is a good idea to take stuff in HTML already
> and move it to a (superior) different system.

Shall we try to enumerate the alternatives and tradeoffs?   

Option 1:
    Editors produce W3C-style HTML documents however they like,
    and mail them to the WG any time they re-stablize.  Only editor can
    make changes.

Option 2:
    Editors produce W3C-style HTML documents however they like and have
    CVS access at w3.org, so they can put versions up on the website.
    Revision history is kept in CVS.

Option 3:
    Editors use mediawiki pages which can be programmatically
    assembled/reformated into W3C style.  Anyone in WG *can* change a
    document; social conventions control who does.   Revision history is
    kept by the wiki.

...?

I think editors should have a lot more say in this than the
WG-in-general, but maybe the WG has some requirements on the process as
well.

      -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 17:10:29 UTC