Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > The "new age" of html?

Reply
Thread Tools

The "new age" of html?

 
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
On 5 Jan, 12:04, libbasic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> decided to do this with a wiki. The trouble is that it isn't
> automated enough and it isn't smart enough. Sometimes you really do
> need an application and not just a document.


A good wiki isn't just "a document" though. Speaking about MediaWiki
you have the categorization mechanism to annotate entries (pages),
templates to build "tags" to make this easy (a single template that
categorizes for you) and then extensions like DPL (dynamic page list)
that allow quite powerful querying on this. You're still constrained
by the mapping between "smallest unit of data" and "page" for input,
but you can build fairly complex workflows onto such pages, and also
assemble quite good single summary pages to report on them.


> Wikis are great for knowledge sharing but they can suffer the same
> feature creep as other platforms.


Feature creep isn't a problem, it's just the nature of users. You need
to manage it of course, swat the stupid requests, don't let tech
possibilities drive features, but otherwise it's evolutionary
development of user requirements. If you do it right, it's your
friend.


> So when does this system stop being a wiki and start being a CMS?


Wikis aren't about pages, they're about sites. Any number of half-
baked blog engines are available that use something like wikitext to
markup an entry, but the structure of the overall site is defined by
the blog engine coding, not the content entered.

Wikis use wikitext (simplified markup, where editors may trigger
linkage) and DO NOT require additional annotation beyond this. CMS may
or may not require this, and are a superset of wiki anyway. The
distinction between wiki and non-wiki CMS is certainly grey, but
anything that has the overall site's "schema", "structure" or
"linkage" enforced from outside the wikitext alone, or requires this
to be done through anything other than an emergent behaviour based on
the wikitext, has characterised itself as being non-wiki.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
libbasic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
On Jan 6, 11:26*am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 12:04, libbasic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > decided to do this with a wiki. *The trouble is that it isn't
> > automated enough and it isn't smart enough. *Sometimes you really do
> > need an application and not just a document.

>
> A good wiki isn't just "a document" though. Speaking about MediaWiki
> you have the categorization mechanism to annotate entries (pages),
> templates to build "tags" to make this easy (a single template that
> categorizes for you) and then extensions like DPL (dynamic page list)
> that allow quite powerful querying on this. You're still constrained
> by the mapping between "smallest unit of data" and "page" for input,
> but you can build fairly complex workflows onto such pages, and also
> assemble quite good single summary pages to report on them.


Interesting. With a rich enough document model some powerful things
can be done.

> > Wikis are great for knowledge sharing but they can suffer the same
> > feature creep as other platforms.

>
> Feature creep isn't a problem, it's just the nature of users. You need
> to manage it of course, swat the stupid requests, don't let tech
> possibilities drive features, but otherwise it's evolutionary
> development of user requirements. If you do it right, it's your
> friend.


User demands pose problems that you must solve either actively or
passively.

> > So when does this system stop being a wiki and start being a CMS?

>
> Wikis aren't about pages, they're about sites. Any number of half-
> baked blog engines are available that use something like wikitext to
> markup an entry, but the structure of the overall site is defined by
> the blog engine coding, not the content entered.
>
> Wikis use wikitext (simplified markup, where editors may trigger
> linkage) and DO NOT require additional annotation beyond this. CMS may
> or may not require this, and are a superset of wiki anyway. *The
> distinction between wiki and non-wiki CMS is certainly grey, but
> anything that has the overall site's "schema", "structure" or
> "linkage" enforced from outside the wikitext alone, or requires this
> to be done through anything other than an emergent behaviour based on
> the wikitext, has characterised itself as being non-wiki.


I can see that you've got it systematized. Great.

-Carl Gundel
http://www.runbasic.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris F.A. Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-07-2009
On 2009-01-06, libbasic wrote:
....
> It's true and sometimes I still meet people who are uncomfortable
> unless their BASIC can use line numbers. Line numbers and GOTO
> weren't really much of a problem when you only had 4K RAM. It was
> harder to get in trouble. Later on QBasic introduced structured
> programming to BASIC coders and there was no looking back.


I was using structured programming in BASIC on the C=64, even
before I installed Northcastle Structured BASIC. I never used goto.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments