- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:08:56 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
"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