D Wiki

[Yigal Chripun]

Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 
>> J?r?me M. Berger wrote:
>>> yigal chripun wrote:
>>>> the difference is in the UI (which a wiki doesn't provide) and the format
>>>> used, i.e. not some wiki format.
>>>>
>>>     38 out of 57 of the wikis presented on the Wikipedia comparison page (*)
>>> are listed as having a stable WYSIWYG editor (some of the others are listed
>>> as having an alpha or beta one)...
>>>
>>>         Jerome
>>>
>>> (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software
>> if these wikies provide a wysiwyg editor than what's the point of not using
>> the standard HTML format as the backend?
> 
> In an attempt to help this thread end... 
> 
> Thanks, the bicycle shed is a nice pretty new color and doesn't need any 
> more paint.
> 
> Sigh,
> Brad
> 
> (Why is it that people can't stick to the original question and avoid the 
> 100% pointless side discussion?  No, really, don't answer that)
> 

this is not a pointless side discussion, you asked for alternatives for 
the current wiki and we were discussing such alternatives.

There is no bicycle shed issue here - on the contrary, I'm arguing 
*against* trying to choose between different wiki formats and instead go 
for the web's standard format, [X]HTML.

if that would have been done in the first place you wouldn't need 
volunteers to help you convert the content to the new wiki that you are 
going to choose.