1 |
Hi |
2 |
|
3 |
> Show me a wiki that makes it easy to create tables, for example, compare RadeonProgram from the x.org wiki: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonProgram?action=edit |
6 |
> |
7 |
> ||<-2 style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''Native''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R100''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R200''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R300''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R400''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''RS690''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R500''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R600''' ||<style="text-align: center; background-color: #666666"> '''R700''' || |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> . . . that's one line of cells. One. Ugly. Compare it to: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml#doc_chap5_pre1 |
13 |
> |
14 |
> <table> |
15 |
> <tr> |
16 |
> <th>Foo</th> |
17 |
> <th>Bar</th> |
18 |
> </tr> |
19 |
> <tr> |
20 |
> <ti>This is an example for indentation</ti> |
21 |
> <ti>more stuff</ti> |
22 |
> </tr> |
23 |
> </table> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Which is easier to read and instantly comprehend? |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
Yes, but the wiki layout is badly written, you should be comparing it to: |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|| '''Native''' || '''R100''' || '''R200''' || '''R300''' || '''R400''' || '''RS690''' || '''R500''' || '''R600''' || '''R700''' || |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
I think this reads ok? In fact with a bit of thought from some premade |
35 |
styles even the ''' bit should go? |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
> By moving to a wiki, you'll lose a huge percentage of what GuideXML can do, in exchange for "quicker" and "easier" editing and creation of docs, though neither of these have been qualified. |
39 |
|
40 |
I think this summarises the basic tradeoff - you trade editing speed for |
41 |
"simplicity" of syntax and readability. Clearly as your example shows |
42 |
it's possible to write complicated looking stuff in any syntax though, |
43 |
but in general wiki's win where the content is most important and |
44 |
styling is done separately using CSS (a bit like guideXML really) |
45 |
|
46 |
> As some others on this list have mentioned, wiki syntax is downright ugly and simply not as consistent or readable as plain ol' XML or HTML. |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
I think this is a point of contention. Certainly it was a design goal |
50 |
for the wiki syntax to be simple and easily readable, but one man's |
51 |
"simple" is another mans XML... |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
> From what I've seen, the biggest objection to GuideXML is folks don't want to take the time to learn a few tags. Well, you'll have to learn tags and syntax for either system, so pick your poison. I've yet to see a wiki that even has as much sense as HTML, which is pretty low on the totem pole of consistency. |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
Actually I think GuideXML is excellent - if there is a wiki style engine |
58 |
which allows you to post in GuideXML then we should do it? |
59 |
|
60 |
I think it's not an objection to the GuideXML which is the problem, but |
61 |
creating a system which can be edited quickly and easily in a granular |
62 |
fashion. Eg imagine all the guideXML docs being in a git repo with open |
63 |
access to pull/push changes - you could build a web engine around that |
64 |
which rebuilds the web pages interactively as people push edits and this |
65 |
would be cool! In the meantime wiki's are just trying to solve the same |
66 |
goal of easy edits with small granularity of edits |
67 |
|
68 |
However, I love the idea of a "wiki" based around git using GuideXML! |
69 |
(probably it kind of works like this right now - I think it's the access |
70 |
control which is the secret sauce...) |
71 |
|
72 |
> I ain't out to stop ya'll from using a wiki. I do agree that they have some advantages. However, I will point out how limited wikis are. They're not a magic bullet that will solve all our problems. |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
Definitely. |
76 |
|
77 |
Good luck |
78 |
|
79 |
Ed W |