Wiki recommendations -- Practical Experience

[Chris G]

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:37:25PM +0100, Luis Paulo wrote:
> Thanks, Chris
> 1. Yes, it may be a matter of taste. I tend to agree with you, but
> 
> =This is my Heading 1=
> ....
> ==My Heading 2==
> 
> may be easier and more readable than
> This is my Heading 1
> =================
> ...
> My Heading 2
> ===========
> 
> Please correct me, I'm not used to the second form
> 

It would normally be:-

Top Heading
===========

...
...
...

Next Level
----------

... and you can use +++ ... and other characters for further levels. 
To my mind it's much more natural if you're wanting the 'source' text
to be usable as well as the text rendered in the Wiki.  The whole
philosophy behind reStructuredText is to make the source text as easy
to enter and as usable as possible.  There are several Wikis that can
use reStructuredText (Moin is one) but nothing really mainstream that
uses it as its basic markup.

> As a note, I'd love a wiki that internally store some kind of docbook
> or xml representation of the wiki text, not the wiki text as is, and
> then allow each user to choose his wiki dialect to edit the page  (at
> least choose from a few).
> 
That sounds quite a nice idea.


> 2. I may have not been clear.
> Was not saying s web page is like a word document. Not at all, you are right.
> What I was saying is it can/might look like one if that is what you
> want (and the OP wanted it to look like one for printing). Just change
> the css and it will make the difference, as you surely know.
> 
> Something like this is done in many sites with the "Print this page"
> link or a print button on the html page.
> ex: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/242450 -> "Print this page" link
> (that page don't have anything relevant for this post)
> 
Yes, I had to adapt my previous Wiki to make printing work better,
though ideally again the browser should do it 'transparently' I guess. 


> 3.
> Here I don't agree with you at all
> I understood version regression as the possibility to go back and be
> able to undo changes.
> It's a must :)
> 
> You may say that if it is only you in a offline computer using the
> wiki, it's not that important. But it still is nice to be able to see
> what have you changed since yesterday, or how that page looked a month
> ago, and be able to undo the changes if you want to.
> 
> If it is a collaborative work it's really a must. What other people
> have changed since you last edited it? Remove garbage (intentional or
> not), etc...
> That how I see it, of course.
> 
I've nothing against history/version control, it can be useful even
for one user systems, I was just saying that the 'nasty users' reason
doesn't always apply.

-- 
Chris Green