Re: ???

[Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>]

warewolf wrote:

><Jorrit.Tyberghein@uz.kuleuven.ac.be>,
>From: kiwa01@paradise.net.nz
>Subject: Re: For the third time...

Good god, Nicholas. How did you manage to get the mail header *this*
scrambled???

>> >with nothing more than a link to the project home page.  It would be
>> >great if someone (not me!  I know nothing about this kind of thing so
>> >if it's up to me, it just won't get done...) could make the page more
>> >interactive s.t. the developers could maintain their documentation
>> >themselves, ideally from a web browser.  Any ideas/volunteers?
>> 
>> What about having the web page in CVS and giving trusted developers write
>> access? This works really well for PenguinPlay...
>As I think I've suggested previously, something like WikiWikiWeb would 
>work well.  There is a CVS version as well.

Hmmm, I have some problems with wikiwikiweb...

(1) It only allows online editing and staying online is really expensive
here in Europe. I could write things offline and "submit" them via
copy-and-paste, but that's ugly.

(2) With CVS I always have a local copy of the things I wrote. With
wikiwiki I could only rely on by browser/proxy cache.

(3) It doesn't provide authorization. I know this sounds picky, but imagine
someone places links to porn sites on our "links" page. Even if someone
browses through the entire site each day to check for such things, a few
additional links are subtle enough to be overseen.

(4) Wiki gives really nice HTML output, but it's quite spartanic. E.g. in
the docs or links sections tables would be very nice (even if Lynx has
problems with them)


So I'd suggest we use CVS for most of the stuff and wiki/fom for FAQ,
Guestbook etc (i.e. the areas where this stuff has its strengths)

Cu
	Christian
 --

I am Yeti of Borg - U will b asssmsh...  assishe... as