| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 07:21:53PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:39:43 -0500 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I don't care that we have a wiki, but can we please look into killing |
| 6 |
> > mediawiki and look at something with a git backend? It would be very |
| 7 |
> > nice to be able to edit wiki pages in markdown or another similar format |
| 8 |
> > and use git to control the changes instead of editing in a browser. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 1. Who are the primary beneficiaries of this suggestion?: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> a. People with expert knowledge of development systems and people |
| 13 |
> with Gentoo Privileges |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> b. End users who may not be experts, in all things development, but |
| 16 |
> may be able to contribute and consume content. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Anyone really could benefit from it. The replacements are wikis, so if |
| 19 |
you want to edit via the web like you do now, that's still available. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 2. What compromises in flexibility does this create? Eg: Do suggested |
| 23 |
> replacements have capacity to have arbitrary HTML and templating? Or |
| 24 |
> are they restricted to the terribly narrow featureset of Markdown? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Several of them support multiple formats, so that would depend on the |
| 27 |
replacement chosen. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> If you're optimising for 1-a and your choice of compromise results in a |
| 30 |
> reduction in functionality with regards to clear, flexible, and |
| 31 |
> expressive content, it will be hard to sell me on the idea. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Yes I would benefit from this change, but it is not a case of optimizing |
| 34 |
for one. It is a case of opening up the use of the wiki to the largest |
| 35 |
audiance possible. This is just good universal design. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Thanks, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
William |
Archives