W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Editing documents

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:35:38 -0400
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <68F6F4CE-9CE5-4B4F-A81E-0FA233A8634D@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
On 19 Oct 2009, at 12:43, Birte Glimm wrote:

> I talked to Sandro and his wiki magic is pretty time consuming and
> complicated to set up, so it is only worth the effort if (more or
> less) all documents are always edited in the wiki and from time to
> time we decide to publish something. Then the wiki magic will do the
> wiki to W3C HTML pages conversion.
> Working only in the wiki for OWL was initially a bit painful because
> it was very slow, but W3C has upgraded their servers and now it works
> ok and the wiki has all the features hat they needed. Wiki is not very
> good with parallel changes according to Ian, but for OWL it worked
> pretty well overall I think.

At least three editors (me, Boris, and Peter) hated the wiki. It was  
ok for some things (low entry barrier), but when it went wrong it went  
fairly wrong. I found it a bit inhibiting when having to do major  
changes. And even small changes could be annoying, depending on the  
nature of the change.

(Note, I like wikis by and large ;))

I don't know if it was, in aggregate worse than any other method.  
Boris, Peter, and I can be kinda whiny :)

> They have wiki templates for bib entries
> for example, so that bibliographies are consistent throughout the
> documents and templates are nice for other things too.

I think most of these could be replicated with xmlspec or similar.

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 17:36:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC