et> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Douglas Royds wrote: > Jim Cheetham wrote: >> I'm not especially happy about that, though, as I didn't to see an >> "aggregate editing/blog" style of wiki, but a free-for-all >> edit-what's-already-there style. Preserving attributions seems to >> force the blog style. >> > I think that the answer here is a Twiki, which does involve log-ins and > a CVS server. Is this difficult, Jim? This means that CVS would record > the attribution automatically, and we can always roll back. We can have > an anonymous log-in for the terminally shy. Sure, any wiki variant is possible. The phpwiki can be asked to force login, too. I use twiki internally at work, and I think it's editing model is a dog (i.e. forces previews and looks ugly by default). The wikipedia one seems interesting, but may have too many features. The concept of "Wiki history/CVS maintains attributions" is interesting, but I don't know what happens in backup/restore cycle. If it doesn't restore the edit history (i.e. dumps only the current page views) than it couldn't be compliant ... -jim
