MJ Ray schrieb: > Bastian Venthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> * I don't believe we should favor XML(-ish stuff) above simplified >> markup when the target audience are humans. XML is good for many things >> but definitely not for being edited by the casual user. [...] > > We have good tools for editing XML, which are much better than > the tools we have for editing non-TextFormattingRules wiki texts.
The point is: All you need to edit wiki syntax effectively is a plain text field (and optionally an inline spell checker). Really, wiki syntax is that easy. In contrast to XML where you suddenly need "good tools" in order to edit effectively. >> Please think of the translators: [...] > > Erm, I am a translator, although I've not translated much of > www.debian.org. It's a two minute job to edit a page on the site: > find source file, update it, edit it, check it in. This can all be > done quite easily from the editor's menus. CVS is so common that many > editors can work with it well. Yes, common for you, me and other techies. But you know, not everyone is a geek. BTW it takes definitely more than "two minutes" if you first have to find out what to do, what to check out and which page to edit. In contrast to a wiki, where you can edit instantly. >> * Moving even more towards a programming style environment by >> suggesting gettext for translations, seems very inappropriate and would >> raise the barrier for non coders even more. Translating text shouldn't >> be so complicated, if it can be made as easy as editing a wiki or CMS. > > Translators also have good tools for handling gettext. What's more, > if we used gettext for more of the site, we could use nice web > translation frontends more easily. I'm not sure it's worthwhile, but > it seems a better option than the wiki. If you mean with "Nice web translation frontents": "someone can enter translated text into a webfrontend", than it sounds pretty much like "wiki" for me. >> * I don't understand what you mean with "undocumented browser >> dependencies". Never had a problem with any wiki and the different >> graphical browsers out there. I assume you mean text based browsers? > > Not unless Iceweasel is suddenly a text-based browser. My > configuration is a bit different to defaults, for various reasons, but Hmm, ok. "a bit different to defaults" (what ever this means) and suddenly you're not able to edit a wiki anymore? I think we shouldn't take your setup as the reference for the quality of a wiki. Especially since most wikis don't require anything special like javascript or even flash. This reminds me BTW of an IRC conversation a few hours ago where someone (not you) was basically arguing against a fancy redesign of our homepage and it turned out that he mainly uses a textbased browser ;) > if the wiki documented its requirements, I expect I could set > something up quite quickly. Instead, AFAIK, I either spend time > trial-and-erroring it, rummaging in its sources, switch computer or > just ignore wiki.d.o as broken until it's fixed. What's easiest? Again, your setup is probably broken. If you broke it on purpose and *really* wonder why wiki.d.o does not work anymore for you, I'm sorry. But I have a simple trick for you: just create another account with a default iceweasel setup. Should work out of the box and takes max 1 minute to setup. > Ignore wins so far. Thank $DEITY we have a decent access route for Hmm your arguments weren't very convincing for me, but I guess that's pretty much the same you're thinking about mine. > editing the main web site instead of a nasty web form. Maybe we have some kind of generation gap here, some people prefer to work with their well known all-purpose tools while others are already comfortable to use e.g. a browser to check their mail or edit a wiki. Cheers, Bastian -- Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de Debian Developer venthur at debian org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]