D Wiki

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Hello Yigal,
> 
>> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>>
>>> yigal chripun wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> What's the quantifiable difference?  The only one I can think of is
>>> that CMSes are designed for closed-authorship sites (you have to
>>> register and be approved) whereas Wikis are the other way around.
>>> But since you can change that, it doesn't seem like a reason to have
>>> a CMS, especially since we *want* an open-authorship site.
>>>
>> the difference is in the UI (which a wiki doesn't provide) and the
>> format used, i.e. not some wiki format.
>>
> 
> One major *advantage* of wikies is that the UI is a browser. If I need 
> to install anything (even a plugin, and lets pretend I don't have flash 
> already) I'm not going to be contributing anything.
> 

no. wikies are text based and have *NO* UI.
the flash widget was, as you said, "if all else fails" and we do not 
need to go to that extreme.

why is a standards based rich text editor so hard to envision? are we 
considering supporting all browsers since explorer 1.0 and that's why 
it's so hard?

IMO, this is doable. I am able to compose rich text messages in gmail 
without the need to learn some obscure wiki format. so maybe gmail 
doesn't provide support for all possible combinations of html tags but 
neither is the wiki format.

all i'm trying to say is that it's more productive IMO to try to fix the 
few problems that the current rich text editors have (according to other 
people's replies) than to give up and just use the wrong design.