(anonymous guest) (logged out)

Copyright (C) by the contributors. Some rights reserved, license BY-SA.

Sponsored by the Wiki Symposium and the Nuveon GmbH.


moved from Talk:


RadomirDopieralski: We are making some progress, and receiving some feedback, but it seems to be pretty disorganized. In particular, it's hard to find rationales and explanations behind the decissions, as well as proper discussions on alternatives. I'm afraid that we will end up with some markup format, and not much more.

That's why I'd like to start creating some GoodPractices descriptions related to creating markup language for wikis in particular, and (maybe) text markup languages in general.

If each new proposition, recommendation, good practice, etc. is on a separate page, then it's easier to document it's pros and cons, interactions with other parts, discussion.

I'm not sure if this wiki is a good place to do it, but we can try. I'm a little afraid of clashes with existing pages on this wiki, and of "hijacking recent changes" -- after all it would be nice to just look at RC here and see what's new in the draft.

What do you people think? Would you be interested in such a wiki? Maybe somehting like this already exists?

ChristophSauer: Good Idea. I think this wiki would be a good place to put it, and actually Ward also mentioned this idea of BestPractices. If we have more implementations I would like to set up a student research project that would test the usability of creole in non technical faculties. They then could use and extend those GoodPractices for creole. Let's keep it here and see how it works out. Let's keep the efforts focused on one wiki for now. I would not be too afraid of hijacking RC. If people are interested in a particular set of pages, for example how the standard is evolving, they can use the individual RSS feeds of every page to compile their own RC through their blogreader.


I like pie, but I'm a little concerned about the sampling of wiki engines used to make those charts. I noticed that every chart uses a different set of wiki engines to compare against -- what are the rules of choosing them? Shouldn't the sample set be uniform?

I started making the No Wiki Markup Comparison and I understand perfectly how hard it is to collect information about markup on wikis -- that's why I'm listing the engines that are on WikiMatrix, but that I failed to collect information about (they lack documentation, their site is down or otherwise unusable, they only use a WYSIWYG editor).

I know that the collected statistics are not biased on purpose and that it's technical and/or organisational difficulties that rule the choice of engines, but at the same time I think we should play it safe and don't lie when we don't have full info.

-- Radomir Dopieralski, 2007-Apr-04

Thanks Radomir. Yes, the charts should be uniform. And if it is impossible for some reason (e.g. because some engines don't support some markup) there should be at least an explanation why the charts are not uniform. Chuck, could you add this please?

-- Christoph Sauer, 2007-Apr-10

Add new attachment

Only authorized users are allowed to upload new attachments.

« This page (revision-7) was last changed on 05-Mai-2007 13:29 by ChristophSauer