Sorry that I'm being very sluggish in replying to this thread - and
worse, I'm busy enough that I'm not able to give as much thought to the
replies as I would like to...
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 06:13 -0400, Sam Michaels wrote:
> Let's step back and list what needs to be accomplished:
>
> 1) PROTECTED documentation that is not to be changed, most likely
> created from the DocBook file Philip hands out for each version
> 2) A way for exim users to offer commentary
> 3) An easy way for mirrors to rsync
BTW I was wondering about (3), but I've come to the conclusion that the
developing world groups that Philip has done several sets of talks to
are an important contingent who we should not be putting at a
disadvantage. That means we need to cater to mirrors and lowest common
denominator technology requirements for mirrors and readers.
> Pros of wiki:
> 1) It's the latest craze
> 2) It allows anyone to edit anything and create new topics in the docs
> 3) Code is already written
>
> Cons of wiki:
> 1) It's not mirror friendly...in fact, I doubt mirrors would be able
> to handle it easily
It is dumpable...
> 2) #2 of the pro is sort of a mixed blessing...we DON'T want users to
> add stuff to the published exim spec or create their own sections in
> the docs, but merely to give tips/tricks/code on existing
> documentation
Thats also doable - however I would not be convinced that the main
documentation in the wiki is necessarily a good idea. What is a good
idea is (as has been done before) a separate browsable documentation
distribution.
> 3) Massive moderation from defacement would be necessary
Actually no. Thats a solved problem at present - at least on Moin the
anti-spam mechanism is frighteningly effective.
> Pros of a PHP.net-like setup:
> 1) We'd be writing the code so it can be tailored to exim
> 2) The "database" is just a regular file (sqlite) so it's mirror friendly
> 3) Docs are compiled automatically from the DocBook file
> 4) Published exim specs are set in stone
> 5) Comments are approved before being put online
>
> Cons of a PHP.net-like type setup:
> 1) We have to write the code
> 2) Users cannot add their own topics--but do we really want them to
> just add stuff to the docs?
> 3) Mirrors will REQUIRE PHP with the sqlite library
4) Comments are approved before being put online (ie someone has to
moderate).
> I just feel that wiki is not the answer here...we're creating
> documentation with comments, not an all-editable encylopedia.
I do think the main website could easily go to wiki with a documentation
subsection that is "special".
I think we need three things from a web site:-
* Basic information - ie the stuff thats currently in the main web
site. This could be a wiki - OK it might get played with, but
spamwise thats normally a non-issue, vandalism has not commonly
been seen, and is easily picked up and fixed.
* Documentation
* A means for user supplied information to be put back in a way
thats useful for others. This is a mailing list supplement, or
maybe a mailing list memory.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
