D Wiki

[yigal chripun]

Daniel Keep Wrote:

> 
> 
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > I also hate wiki systems. I think even just plain old HTML with a git
> > backend would be orders of magnitude better.
> > other alternatives that come to mind:
> 
> That's pretty much what a Wiki is, except that it has a web frontend to
> edit the content.
> 
> Also, there are issues with using plain old HTML (see below).
> 
> > 1) A CMS - depends on what package you choose but some are very good at
> > organization of content
> 
> A wiki *is* a CMS.

no. I meant a CMS like joomla or something in that category.
> 
> > and also no need to deal with different
> > home-grown wiki dialects (I never understood what's the point of
> > replacing HTML. NIH syndrome or something?)
> 
> <p>Because <tt>HTML</tt> can be <em>damned</em> verbose (and ugly, to
> boot) at times.  Not to mention <strong>hard to read</strong>.</p>
> 
> Because ``HTML`` can be *damned* verbose (and ugly, to boot) at times.
> Not to mention **hard to read**.
> 
> That said, there are some wiki formats that can FRO [1].  They're
> generally still nicer to use than raw HTML once you know what the hell's
> going on.  I personally prefer reStructuredText over pretty much
> everything else.
> 

huh? when you compose an HTML message in gmail do you write all those tags?? 
when you write a word document do you know what is the encoding of the content is??

the format is an implementation detail that should *not* be exposed to the user. a proper CMS provides you with UI to enter your content while a wiki has NO proper UI. the only "advantage" a WIKI system has is that it uses a non standard encoding format that each time you switch to a different WIKI you need to convert all your content. 
the concept of a wiki is wrong by design. 

> > 2) google wave server would be extremely awesome once it's released
> > later this year.
> > 
> > --yigal
> 
> I doubt that.  The demo was very good at being cool, but notice how it
> *never* showed more than about five people in a conversation at once?
> How exactly are you going to scale that up to an entire community?
> 
> Plus, having to manually add everyone to every conversation every time
> you make a new page would be a tremendous pain in the ass.
> 
> It's a great replacement for personal email, not so much for ~(personal
> email).
> 
> (I'm not saying having a Google Wave server of our own wouldn't be cool;
> it just isn't appropriate for this task.)
> 
> 
> [1] Uhh... "flip" right off.

about google wave, I think you missed the point of the presentation completely. the idea is that the system is extendable with plugins. you will not add people to conversations manually but rather we will have a forum like system built _on top_ of wave with plugins.