On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 16:26 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > On 9/20/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So why not just use one of the open source Wiki environments? They > > support all this stuff? If they aren't good enough as is, modify one of > > them and make it an optional extra. Mozilla composer? Again improving > > that would be less draining on resources that inventing something new. > > > Here's what I want to avoid - having to download anything (although an > optional "off-line / in browser" version could be available, along with the > big-dog OOo suite). It needs to be able to run from any computer in the > world with Net Access and a broswer. OS-agnostic. Browser-agnostic.
Wikis generally are. > Standards-based stuff. It needs to be able to save to a hard drive or flash > drive - or be emailled to whereever, or published via FTP. Sounds like you need an XML ODF then ;-) > Of course, if > someone wants to host WebOOo and offer (for pay?) optional hosting of the > documents, then great! But the option to save as DOC, OpenDocument, PDF, > Flash, RTF, or whatever needs to be there. Wikis usually just publish to the > site in html or php or whatever. It's not a printable, sendable document. > Wikis are for web-publishing, not document creation. I thought the discussion was that OOo needed a web publisher to do web sites. OOo already has the facilities to save files as sendable documents, we don;t have to add anything to do that. > Personally I can't really understand why most of the OOo website isn't a > > wiki. Ok have the bits that need to shut people out as secure as Fort > > Knox, but Wikipedia shows that if you make it easy to contribute you get > > a lot of contributions. > > Amen to that! Wikis/blogs/comments/community/user-created - all very cool. > > -Chad Smith -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
