Re: [Mediawiki-l] fighting; WYSIWYG compatibility - Re: Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG towiki

Good attitude Petr -- much more appropriate testosterone level then some other posts. Personally, I find MediaWiki a GREAT tool & I would like to congratulate the whole dev team for their excellent work. It was in no way my intention to "attack somebody's baby". I was merely expressing what I believe is a requirement (re: WYSIWYG for corporate environments) that would limit the friction of the adoption process of MediaWiki. Furthermore, I believe that a full WYSIWYG presentation layer "a la Pagemaker" is not necessary but at least a decent table entry tool would be a great start! If this sort of feedback on the tool is deemed inappropriate, then I sincerely apologise but it makes me wonder how the "customer management" side of MediaWiki is handled.... I understand that MediaWiki is *free* and *nobody* on the MediaWiki development team is obliged to respond to *any* other requirement but their own, but I believe that well mannere & sincere feedback should always be welcomed. Jld. -----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Petr Andreyev Sent: August 9, 2006 05:39 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: [Mediawiki-l] fighting;WYSIWYG compatibility - Re: Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG towiki It's sad to see people fighting on this list, trying to hurt each other. This reminds me of two ways of breaking eggs in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. I believe that if software architecture is good enough one can extend the functionality in many orthogonal ways. And developing such an architecture and such a software would be really in the spirit of the ideas behind wikipedia and "opensource creativity". I would follow a rule: accept any change that would make the software more universal and modular (there are performance issues but they can be resolved, especially in the case of mediawiki). Then there will be much less politics, ownership and fighting. In the particular case of WYSIWYG: suppose wiki text is abstracted in such a way that other code only has access to methods of storing, visualising, comparing and extracting structure from it (may be it is exactly and completely this way in mediawiki now - that would be great!). Then we can have some pages in wiki markup and some pages in HTML! The wiki markup pages must be edited in the usual way, HTML pages - with WYSIWYG editor. There is no need to have all pages stored in wiki markup or to edit wiki markup pages with WYSIWYG - no conversion and cleaning problems at all! And one could have a choice what types of pages to have on their particular installation. ( By the way, it was done that way (two types of wiki pages) in the Russian project NPJ http://www.npj.ru/ ) Then you can use mediawiki for intranet as well, to the glory of it! What are other problems that I don't see? 2006/8/9, jdd <jdd(a)dodin.org>rg>: _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/413 - Release Date: 08/08/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/413 - Release Date: 08/08/2006