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. >>> and also no need to deal with different >>> home-grown wiki dialects (I never understood what's the point of >>> replacing HTML. NIH syndrome or something?) >> <p>Because <tt>HTML</tt> can be <em>damned</em> verbose (and ugly, to >> boot) at times. Not to mention <strong>hard to read</strong>.</p> >> >> ... > > huh? when you compose an HTML message in gmail do you write all those tags?? > when you write a word document do you know what is the encoding of the > content is?? > > the format is an implementation detail that should *not* be exposed to the > user. a proper CMS provides you with UI to enter your content while a wiki > has NO proper UI. the only "advantage" a WIKI system has is that it uses a > non standard encoding format that each time you switch to a different WIKI > you need to convert all your content. > the concept of a wiki is wrong by design. I hate in-browser rich text editors; every single one I've ever used sucked massively. For example, when I was posting on Blogger, I had to write every post manually because their rich text editor was painful and crippled; it wouldn't allow me to do the things I wanted to do. Like use paragraphs. Or insert internal links to footnotes. You know, really bloody basic stuff. Until someone shows me a cross-browser rich text editor that doesn't both blow and suck, I'm sticking to simplified markup; it's the only way I get ANY control whatsoever. >>> 2) google wave server would be extremely awesome once it's released >>> later this year. >>> >>> --yigal >> I doubt that. The demo was very good at being cool, but notice how it >> *never* showed more than about five people in a conversation at once? >> How exactly are you going to scale that up to an entire community? >> >> Plus, having to manually add everyone to every conversation every time >> you make a new page would be a tremendous pain in the ass. >> >> It's a great replacement for personal email, not so much for ~(personal >> email). >> >> (I'm not saying having a Google Wave server of our own wouldn't be cool; >> it just isn't appropriate for this task.) >> >> >> [1] Uhh... "flip" right off. > > about google wave, I think you missed the point of the presentation > completely. the idea is that the system is extendable with plugins. you will > not add people to conversations manually but rather we will have a forum like > system built _on top_ of wave with plugins. No, I saw that. I *did* watch it. My point is that Wave is exclusive communication, not inclusive. You start a wave by adding the people you're interested in, then they can add to it. A wiki, on the other hand, lets anyone edit it without explicit permission. Now, maybe you could write a plugin to publish waves to a wiki or something... but at that point, why the hell aren't you just using the wiki itself?
