BCS wrote:
Hello Yigal,
Daniel Keep Wrote:
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.
the difference is in the UI (which a wiki doesn't provide) and the
format used, i.e. not some wiki format.
One major *advantage* of wikies is that the UI is a browser. If I need
to install anything (even a plugin, and lets pretend I don't have flash
already) I'm not going to be contributing anything.
no. wikies are text based and have *NO* UI.
the flash widget was, as you said, "if all else fails" and we do not
need to go to that extreme.
why is a standards based rich text editor so hard to envision? are we
considering supporting all browsers since explorer 1.0 and that's why
it's so hard?
IMO, this is doable. I am able to compose rich text messages in gmail
without the need to learn some obscure wiki format. so maybe gmail
doesn't provide support for all possible combinations of html tags but
neither is the wiki format.
all i'm trying to say is that it's more productive IMO to try to fix the
few problems that the current rich text editors have (according to other
people's replies) than to give up and just use the wrong design.
