www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Why not use MediaWiki for the wiki4d site?

reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's 
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example 
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is 
to use the MediaWiki package.
Almost all dead wiki's I've seen use something other than MediaWiki, and 
almost all successful wiki's I've seen use the MediaWiki. Maybe I'm just 
being delusional, but I think using a good wiki package plays a big role 
in the success of the wiki .. after all, it's all psychological, if it 
looks nice and organized, then it'll attract users, if not, then not!
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki


For those who happen to not know what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
Dec 05 2005
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dn315a$2t3h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's 
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example 
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is 
to use the MediaWiki package.

I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the content. People edit wikis, not software. The bandwidth and setup effort has been generously donated by Helmut Leitner. He has a wiki company. It's been the semi-official D wiki for quite a while now. It's always been very reliable, and I think it's pretty easy to edit. If the content is out-of-date, it might be because it's more fun to add content than to edit content. If you see something that's out-of-date, please be our guest and update it. Also, Brad is adding Trac wikis to all of the dsource projects. But since Trac isn't a MediaWiki either, I guess your problem remains resolved. ;) (An earlier wiki was setup at http://dlanguage.netunify.com, but its bandwidth was unreliable, and eventually it disappeared. I guess whoever owned the address stopped paying for it.) jcc7
Dec 05 2005
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 In article <dn315a$2t3h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is
to use the MediaWiki package.

I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the content. People edit wikis, not software. The bandwidth and setup effort has been generously donated by Helmut Leitner. He has a wiki company. It's been the semi-official D wiki for quite a while now. It's always been very reliable, and I think it's pretty easy to edit. If the content is out-of-date, it might be because it's more fun to add content than to edit content. If you see something that's out-of-date, please be our guest and update it. Also, Brad is adding Trac wikis to all of the dsource projects. But since Trac isn't a MediaWiki either, I guess your problem remains resolved. ;) (An earlier wiki was setup at http://dlanguage.netunify.com, but its bandwidth was unreliable, and eventually it disappeared. I guess whoever owned the address stopped paying for it.) jcc7

I suppose this is a matter of taste, and for my part it is mostly related to the wiki syntax. I've used both the Trac wiki and MediaWiki extensively, and find the latter more powerful and with easier tagging, but then it is also more mature. I find the integration between the wiki and the tickets/changesets/etc very nifty, though. As for the Wiki4D, I've used it too little to comment. Lars Ivar Igesund
Dec 06 2005
prev sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:
 In article <dn315a$2t3h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Hasan Aljudy says...
 
It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
outdated *, and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good, and I think that's 
a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

* (look at the faq/roadmap for example 
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is 
to use the MediaWiki package.

I don't see how changing to another wiki system is going to improve the content. People edit wikis, not software. The bandwidth and setup effort has been generously donated by Helmut Leitner. He has a wiki company. It's been the semi-official D wiki for quite a while now. It's always been very reliable, and I think it's pretty easy to edit. If the content is out-of-date, it might be because it's more fun to add content than to edit content. If you see something that's out-of-date, please be our guest and update it. Also, Brad is adding Trac wikis to all of the dsource projects. But since Trac isn't a MediaWiki either, I guess your problem remains resolved. ;) (An earlier wiki was setup at http://dlanguage.netunify.com, but its bandwidth was unreliable, and eventually it disappeared. I guess whoever owned the address stopped paying for it.) jcc7

Actually, I think the look & feel of the website matter. Yes, people edit wikis, but people use the software to edit wikis, and people use the software to read the wiki. The software imposes several things on the wiki, including the look & feel of the wiki, i.e. the way information is presented, and that matters, /alot/. I'm not dissing anyone .. I appreciate the effort put forward by Helmut Leitner and all the people who contributed to the wiki. I'm just suggesting something because I'm trying to help, and who knows, maybe I'm wrong after all. But let's ask something here: - How many people like the idea of wikis? - How many people visit wikipedia or other wiki sites? - How many of those people visit the D wiki? or let's rephrase the last 2 questions: - Do you find that you visit wikipedia (or other MediaWiki based wikis) more often than you visit the wiki4D? If my guess is correct, and the number of people who like wikis and use wikipedia, exceeds the number of those who use the wiki4D site, then let's ask: - Why don't you use the wiki4D as much? But ofcourse if I'm wrong, then never mind! Few days ago I found this: http://www.editthis.info A free wiki host that uses MediaWiki. Anyone interested in making one for D there?? I would start one there myself, but I'm not good at managing websites and the likes of it.
Jan 19 2006
prev sibling parent reply Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
on issues that are connected with the wiki...

BTW if the Hasan's arguments would hold true, everyone here should
use Java or C#, because they are slicker and more mainstream.

Hasan Aljudy wrote:

 It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite outdated *

Someone already commented on that. If you see it, please fix it.
 , and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good

It has a simple "content over form" layout. But if there is a consensus that a slicker layout is desirable there are options: - chose from available layouts WikiIndex lists 42 wikis based on the ProWiki engine <http://wikiindex.com/Category:ProWiki> - create a new layout from some other layout template or from scratch or clone the MediaWiki design The current layout template is really simplistic: ======== <html> <head> <title>{WikiName} (the wiki for the D programming language): {PageName}</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="creation-timestamp" content="{Insert:DateCreation}"> <meta name="keyword" content="{Insert:MetaKeywords;Wiki Community}" > </head> <body {BodyTags}> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=100% height=24> <tr><td width=100% height=48 background="Wiki4D.gif">&nbsp;</td></tr> </table> <font size=3><br></font> <font size=6><b>{PageTitle}</b></font><font size=3><br><b>{PageTitleComment}</b></font> <font size=3>&nbsp;<br></font> {LinkBarTextHor} <hr> {PageText} <hr> {LinkBarTextHor} {EditBar} {SearchForm} </body> </html> ======== and it's not rocket science to adapt it to anything you like.
 , and I think that's a reason for why so many pages are outdated.

I can assure you that this is *NOT* the reason. I've put thousands of work hours into building wiki communities and one thing is sure: there is no strong relationsship between layout and success.
 * (look at the faq/roadmap for example
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FaqRoadmap)

 The wiki needs alot of repolishing IMO, the best palce to start with is to use
the MediaWiki package.

It is very simple: just do it. The license allows it. The pages can be exported.
 Almost all dead wiki's I've seen use something other than MediaWiki, and
almost all successful wiki's I've seen use 

This is absolutely silly and untrue. Most wikis are at large wiki farms, like wikicities and <1-2% of them are sucessful. MediaWiki is a very good engine, but specialized for enzyklopedias. If you want to deviate from that type of application, it's advantage changes to a disadvantage. One could talk hours about details. Also the uniform surface doesn't help to develop a feeling of community and/or identity - which *IS* important.
 Maybe I'm just being delusional, but I think using a good wiki package plays a
big role in the success of the wiki .. 

 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki


 For those who happen to not know what I'm talking about:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_software
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

The facts are (based on WikiIndex): international market shares (1) MediaWiki 22% (4) ProWiki 3% German home market shares (1) ProWiki 36% (2) MediaWiki 26% These numbers are even more interesting because MediaWiki (and most of the other 90 engines competing) are GPL while ProWiki was available only as a paid service. In addition I only cared for the German language market and did support English projects only occasionally (out of interest - Wiki4D, or when asked). === BUT === ================================= ANNOUNCEMENT: PROWIKI OPEN SOURCE ================================= ProWiki will change it's direction. In March 2000 (planned 15th) it will go OpenSource and make the software freely available. Given our experience in supporting individual community needs combined with additional energy from outside, this will make ProWiki a major competitor in all markets. ============================================= ANNOUNCEMENT: D AS PART OF PROWIKI STRATEGIES ============================================= D is an important option for the future development of ProWiki: - short term as an language to program efficient plugins extending wiki on the server side (e. g. diagramming => SVG) or bulding navigation options like TheBrain (they use Java) - long term to translate the current Perl script into D to get the efficiency advantage of D as a compiled language to get a max-of-millions wiki pages served per year (WikiPedia currently used 100+ physical servers, so this counts for anyone seriously in wiki business) Maybe these D applications could act as a kind of door-opener applications to the larger programming community. The only problem is timing. I believe in the potential of D and in the genius of Walter Bright. But the last two time spans I followed the discussions here and laid my own hands on D, it simply wasn't ready for production use. --- Is D ready now? What is the current status of D?
Feb 10 2006
next sibling parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Helmut Leitner wrote:
 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail 
 
 <SNIP>
 
 

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki. Walter, will you bless this idea?
Feb 10 2006
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
nick wrote:

 Helmut Leitner wrote:
 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
 
 <SNIP>
 
 

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki. Walter, will you bless this idea?

Did you read Helmut's post at all?
Feb 11 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
nick wrote:
 Helmut Leitner wrote:
 
Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail 

<SNIP>

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki. Walter, will you bless this idea?

nick <whoever>, I don't know who you are but your manners are doubtful and offending. I hope you are young to explain your insensitiveness and silliness. Wiki4D was initiated by me because there was an earlier wiki that had very bad response times and quality and I didn't want that the reputation of wiki was spoiled in the D community. I did little more, just add some structure, gave server space. The content was built since March 2003, during almost 3 years by its contributors, 22 of which cared to identify: <http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FolderContributors> and who own it in a moral sense. Walter tolerated Wiki4D but never blessed it. He did AFAIK not substancially contribute to it. I didn't follow the process in detail, but it seems that he sometimes took from its notes on documentation to improve the D website. So he got more from it than he gave to it. He is not in charge of Wiki4D. So if you are at all a thinking human, you should primarily address the Wiki4D community or individual contributors, how they feel about it. Otherwise you can just create an unnessary fork or split that divides energies that should be focused. Helmut
Feb 11 2006
parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Helmut Leitner wrote:
 nick wrote:
 Helmut Leitner wrote:

 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
 <SNIP>

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki. Walter, will you bless this idea?

nick <whoever>, I don't know who you are but your manners are <SNIP> fork or split that divides energies that should be focused. Helmut

My apologies. I really didn't mean to offend you. The existing wiki has helped me out quite a bit. I just don't like anything about the current wiki other than the content. Please don't take that as a personal attack (as you have clearly done).
Feb 11 2006
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dsli87$2os3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
Helmut Leitner wrote:
 nick wrote:
 Helmut Leitner wrote:

 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
 <SNIP>

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki. Walter, will you bless this idea?

nick <whoever>, I don't know who you are but your manners are <SNIP> fork or split that divides energies that should be focused. Helmut

My apologies. I really didn't mean to offend you. The existing wiki has helped me out quite a bit. I just don't like anything about the current wiki other than the content. Please don't take that as a personal attack (as you have clearly done).

"...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important aspects of a wiki anyway? ;) Maybe it's because I'm colorblind and have no sense of fashion, but I don't understand why people are so offended by the current layout of Wiki4D. Maybe it's just they're so used to Wikipedia that any other layout would seem like a cheap knock-off? I know I've been using Wiki4D too long to have any kind of dispassionate "outsider perspective", but it seems to me that our time would be better spent trying to improve the content on Wiki4D than trying to get a movement started to move content to another wiki system such as MediaWiki. Especially since if someone wants to start another wiki (using the software of their choice), no one is stopping them. ;) jcc7
Feb 11 2006
parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:
 "...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important aspects
 of a wiki anyway? ;)
 
 Maybe it's because I'm colorblind and have no sense of fashion, but I don't
 understand why people are so offended by the current layout of Wiki4D. Maybe
 it's just they're so used to Wikipedia that any other layout would seem like a
 cheap knock-off? 
 
 I know I've been using Wiki4D too long to have any kind of dispassionate
 "outsider perspective", but it seems to me that our time would be better spent
 trying to improve the content on Wiki4D than trying to get a movement started
to
 move content to another wiki system such as MediaWiki. Especially since if
 someone wants to start another wiki (using the software of their choice), no
one
 is stopping them. ;)
 
 jcc7

Oh, I think starting a 2nd wiki would be a terrible idea - don't want to split the community. I guess my only real gripe with this one is its appearance. I will provide a more appealing (yet simple) template. And you're right, content is the most important thing, but people judge a book by its cover; it's in human nature.
Feb 11 2006
next sibling parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
nick wrote:
 Oh, I think starting a 2nd wiki would be a terrible idea - don't want to
 split the community. I guess my only real gripe with this one is its
 appearance. I will provide a more appealing (yet simple) template.
 
 And you're right, content is the most important thing, but people judge
 a book by its cover; it's in human nature.

When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.
Feb 11 2006
parent reply J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dsm44v$4l7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

..snip...

When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.

I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have too limited of a view of modern. (Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table) jcc7
Feb 12 2006
parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:
 In article <dsm44v$4l7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
 
 ..snip...
 
 When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
 there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
 a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.

I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have too limited of a view of modern. (Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table) jcc7

Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes: 1) When the data is tabulated (as in your example) 2) When CSS positioning proves inadequate (not everyone will agree). If you disagree with this statement, I encourage you to examine modern web technologies and present evidence to the contrary.
Feb 12 2006
parent reply Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
nick wrote:
 J C Calvarese wrote:
 
In article <dsm44v$4l7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

..snip...


When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then that's
a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.

I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have too limited of a view of modern. (Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table) jcc7

Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes: 1) When the data is tabulated (as in your example) 2) When CSS positioning proves inadequate (not everyone will agree). If you disagree with this statement, I encourage you to examine modern web technologies and present evidence to the contrary.

Nick, again I wonder about your arguments. Since when is "modern" an argument? Exactly here in this place? If it were, there would be no reason to have a D programming language because there are enough languages that are more "modern". On the other hand, for the wiki user it is not visible what basic CSS or HTML elements or commands are used. But I would react immediately if someone argued an advantage for him, that comes for replacing the table code and that compares not too badly with the approx. one hour of work that I would have on that way.
Feb 13 2006
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Helmut Leitner wrote:
 nick wrote:
 J C Calvarese wrote:

 In article <dsm44v$4l7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

 ..snip...


 When I look at the template, it seems that prowiki generates tables. Is
 there a way to make it generate modern HTML? Because if not, then
 that's
 a perfectly good reason to switch to a different wiki engine.

I think you need to come up with a better reason for a transition than hatred of tables. Tables are a valid way to display information in HTML. I think you have too limited of a view of modern. (Besides, MediaWiki can have <table>'s, too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table) jcc7

Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes: 1) When the data is tabulated (as in your example) 2) When CSS positioning proves inadequate (not everyone will agree). If you disagree with this statement, I encourage you to examine modern web technologies and present evidence to the contrary.

Nick, again I wonder about your arguments. Since when is "modern" an argument? Exactly here in this place? If it were, there would be no reason to have a D programming language because there are enough languages that are more "modern". On the other hand, for the wiki user it is not visible what basic CSS or HTML elements or commands are used. But I would react immediately if someone argued an advantage for him, that comes for replacing the table code and that compares not too badly with the approx. one hour of work that I would have on that way.

I think I read somewhere that the css elements are usually faster to render than complex tables. In addition to that, css styles are more centralized&omdular and can reduce server bandwidth. The first argument isn't very significant since wikis are dynamically created, but the latter results in faster client side operation (because style sheets are common for all the pages - no need to download them every time) and also eases the workload of the server. Helmut, maybe you can consult Walter - he has just converted all the official D docs to HTML 4.0 + CSS. IMHO Prowiki is currently more than adequate (Helmut, I really thank you) and there's no much sense in forking alternative D wikis since the community isn't yet that huge. Using the latest w3c standards might help selling the product and make it faster, but there's no compelling need to do it. -- Jari-Matti
Feb 16 2006
parent Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
Nick wrote:
Since we now have CSS using tables should be restricted for 2 purposes:
1) When the data is tabulated (as in your example)
2) When CSS positioning proves inadequate (not everyone will agree).

If you disagree with this statement, I encourage you to examine modern
web technologies and present evidence to the contrary.



Helmut Leitner wrote:
Nick, again I wonder about your arguments.

Since when is "modern" an argument? Exactly here in this place?
If it were, there would be no reason to have a D programming
language because there are enough languages that are more "modern".

On the other hand, for the wiki user it is not visible what basic
CSS or HTML elements or commands are used. But I would react immediately
if someone argued an advantage for him, that comes for replacing
the table code and that compares not too badly with the approx. one
hour of work that I would have on that way.


Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 I think I read somewhere that the css elements are usually faster to
 render than complex tables. In addition to that, css styles are more
 centralized&omdular and can reduce server bandwidth. The first argument
 isn't very significant since wikis are dynamically created, but the
 latter results in faster client side operation (because style sheets are
 common for all the pages - no need to download them every time) and also
 eases the workload of the server. Helmut, maybe you can consult Walter -
 he has just converted all the official D docs to HTML 4.0 + CSS.
 
 IMHO Prowiki is currently more than adequate (Helmut, I really thank
 you) and there's no much sense in forking alternative D wikis since the
 community isn't yet that huge. Using the latest w3c standards might help
 selling the product and make it faster, but there's no compelling need
 to do it.

We could go into long discussions about this bundle of assumptions and their relevance within the wiki engine framework. But in short: ProWiki is going OpenSource in about two weeks and I'm will do a vast amount of cosmetic changes during the next weeks and probably during the next 3-6 months when contributors to the project will request to have their view of optimum implementation represented. The point where some change is easier to do than to lead continous discussions is reached quickly. I hope that I will be as diplomatic and efficient as Walter in dealing with such issues. Helmut
Mar 04 2006
prev sibling parent Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
nick wrote:
 J C Calvarese wrote:
"...other than the content..." Isn't content one of the most important aspects
of a wiki anyway? ;)


 And you're right, content is the most important thing, but people judge
 a book by its cover; it's in human nature.

still books are designed very differently. A programmer's reference is usually not done like an book of art, a phone book not like a encyclopedia, an whodonnit not like a school book. Besides content (what Justin means) and design (what nick longs for) there are still a few issues of functionality that should not get lost: e.g. - automatical linking (which saves a lot of time, at the - for us programmers - small cost of spelling correctness) - simple interwiki linking (in this case into this newsgroup, and the D website) using shortcuts like "Phobos:threads" see http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Context - hierarchical page structures for project-oriented workspaces Wikipedia/Mediawiki is specialized (and good) for its target application but beyond their immediate needs and slick design the ice is very thin. Helmut
Feb 13 2006
prev sibling parent Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
nick wrote:
 Helmut Leitner wrote:

 My apologies. I really didn't mean to offend you. The existing wiki has
 helped me out quite a bit.
 
 I just don't like anything about the current wiki other than the
 content. Please don't take that as a personal attack (as you have
 clearly done).

Nick, no, I neither feel attacked nor offended. But, of course, I accept your apologies. The normal way is that you express your needs in detail, so I get a chance to take this as a feedback, a basis for discussion in the community, and a chance to satisfy you. You can even get direct control over colors or layout as a kind of "Layout achorman" for wiki4d if you want to invest more time. Helmut
Feb 13 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:00:15 +1100, nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> wrote:

 Helmut Leitner wrote:
 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail

 <SNIP>

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki.

Why? The current one is workable and usable. You can contribute anytime to it. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Feb 11 2006
parent nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:00:15 +1100, nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> wrote:
 
 Helmut Leitner wrote:
 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail

 <SNIP>

We really should set up a new Wiki; probably MediaWiki.

Why? The current one is workable and usable. You can contribute anytime to it. --Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia

Yes, I suppose a more appealing layout (like Helmut mentioned) will be on my TODO list. And if you say the engine is good, I'll have to take your word on that.
Feb 11 2006
prev sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Helmut Leitner wrote:
 Sorry for no answering this posting earlier, but I'm reading this
 newsgroup ony occasionally. Please (someone) drop me an e-mail
 on issues that are connected with the wiki...
 
 BTW if the Hasan's arguments would hold true, everyone here should
 use Java or C#, because they are slicker and more mainstream.
 
 Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 
  > It's cool having a wiki for D, but many many of its pages are quite 
 outdated *
 
 Someone already commented on that. If you see it, please fix it.
 
  > , and IMO the wiki doesn't look very good
 
 
 It has a simple "content over form" layout.

I'm all for content-over-form. I always prefer google over yahoo. Google is not only simple; it's "neat". MediaWiki is simple and neat, prowiki .. well, isn't so much neat, and not even so simple. - Header fonts are too big - Colors don't really match - Space is not really used effeciently. - Editing is not so obvious .. registering/logging-in required?! I couldn't really figure it out. I mentioned MediaWiki because it's about the only other wiki I know. Recently I was trying to investigate more into wikis and have seen some other wiki systems that seem to be good too. It should be simple, yes, but simple in a "right way". Google is simple, and it's greay, but so is this page for example http://www.geocities.com/~teddarnold/ ,it's simple, but simple in a *BAD* way. Simple is not always good. I'm not an artist, let alone a web-page designer, so I cannot make a right decision on what it should look like. Just giving my 0.02$ Please don't take it so negativly, I'm not good at diplomatic talk, for some reason or another, I tend to upset people when I voice an opposing opinion. I apologise for any offence.
Feb 11 2006