Brad Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Yigal Chripun wrote:
J?r?me M. Berger wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
the difference is in the UI (which a wiki doesn't provide) and the format
used, i.e. not some wiki format.
38 out of 57 of the wikis presented on the Wikipedia comparison page (*)
are listed as having a stable WYSIWYG editor (some of the others are listed
as having an alpha or beta one)...
Jerome
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software
if these wikies provide a wysiwyg editor than what's the point of not using
the standard HTML format as the backend?
In an attempt to help this thread end...
Thanks, the bicycle shed is a nice pretty new color and doesn't need any
more paint.
Sigh,
Brad
(Why is it that people can't stick to the original question and avoid the
100% pointless side discussion? No, really, don't answer that)
this is not a pointless side discussion, you asked for alternatives for
the current wiki and we were discussing such alternatives.
There is no bicycle shed issue here - on the contrary, I'm arguing
*against* trying to choose between different wiki formats and instead go
for the web's standard format, [X]HTML.
if that would have been done in the first place you wouldn't need
volunteers to help you convert the content to the new wiki that you are
going to choose.
