2011/1/5, Erik Moeller wrote:
Their own editor still appears to be under active development at this
point. I didn't see any pointers to either a code repository or a demo
yet.
Yes, this is correct. The status is in development. Releasedata
estimated Cebit 2011.
*
Hello all,
about WYSIWYG have a look to to this links:
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WissensWert/75_-_Einsatz_des_TWX_WYSIWYG_Editors
*
http://www.wiki4enterprise.org/index.php/Datei:Artikelbearbeitung_Twoonix.jpg.png
TWOONIX is working on an on an MediaWiki based editor.
Best Juliana
.
A.
--- On Tue, 4/1/11, Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com
wrote:
From: Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com
Subject: [Foundation-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2011/1/4 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com:
Thanks, interesting. Go to
http://www.wiki4enterprise.org/index.php?title=Editoraction=edit
That's just FCK, an existing MediaWiki extension.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FCKeditor_%28Official%29
Their own editor still appears to be under
I can promise you that the reason edit rates has gone down is not because of
problems with wikitext. Though the cruft is a symptom.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
There has to be a vision though, of
z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation.
[snip]
* Tim doesn't scale. Most of our other technical people don't scale.
*We have no resources and still run on almost nothing*.
($14m might sound like enough
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation.
[snip]
* Tim doesn't scale. Most of our other technical people don't scale.
*We have no resources and still run on almost nothing*.
On 29 December 2010 05:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You inexplicably posted this to foundation-l, so let's look at this from an
organizational/political standpoint.
I deliberately posted it there because what I'm asking for is broad
and difficult organisational commitment. And
On 29 December 2010 11:03, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The way I read this, you're almost suggesting that Wikia is a competitor to
Wikipedia. Of all the sites on the Web, I think it's reasonable to say that
Wikia is one of the few that inherently was not designed to be a competitor
to
z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
In comparison $14m does seem highly profligate. Our RD budget was £10m
(approx $16) in 2009, spent almost entirely on software development, and =
we
have over 160 software engineers working on our
[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
There has to be a vision though, of something better. Maybe something
that is an actual wiki, quick and easy, rather than the template
coding hell Wikipedia's turned into. - something Fred Bauder just
said on wikien-l.
Our current markup is one of
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
So, the payoffs could be ridiculously huge: eight times the number of
smart and knowledgeable people even being able to *fix typos* on
material they care about.
Jan Paul Posma's inline editor seems pretty promising. It's
Hi David,
from what I understand, there's a fundamental problem:
There is no formal description of WikiSyntax. Its specification is:
what the MediaWiki parser does.
It seems that it's not very hard to write a WYSIWYG that covers 99% of
all WikiSyntax, the problem is the remaining 1%.
That being
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they are integral part of page markup.
You do not insert infobox template, you
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they are integral part of page markup.
You do not insert infobox
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they
More thoughts.
I always viewed wikitext vs. WYSIWYG dilemma as similar to LaTeX vs.
Microsoft Word one.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge
rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors of
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephanie writes:
Layouts would be a new form of template, designed to apply as a
block-level outline to an article, providing both a framework to build a
particular type of article, and defining the formatting for that
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier
to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
Perhaps it's time to
David Gerard wrote:
Our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation.
[snip]
* Tim doesn't scale. Most of our other technical people don't scale.
*We have no resources and still run on almost nothing*.
($14m might sound like enough money to run a popular website, but
25 matches
Mail list logo
