Re: [Gnumed-devel] GnuMed documentation (Was: GNUmed 1.1.9 Maintenance Release)

[Andreas Tille]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 03:02:40PM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> Hum ? I know that in the tarball there are exactly the same number of images 
> as are in the Wiki pages itself. The only nitpick here is that on some pages 
> I 
> have three Download buttons (images) which are connected to different links. 
> Each download button will have a different name in the output. But this is 
> due 
> to the export script not having the feature (or idea) to eliminate 
> duplicates. 
> this is total overkill.

ACK.
 
> Wiki are common practice nowadays. Can you suggest a replacement platform for 
> Wikimedia's Wikipedia other then a Wiki ?

I'd maintain XML in Git and export to whatever format is needed.  You
will say that it is not friendly to newcomers.  I would in return ask
how many newcomers did any edit in the last year?  And finally you would
say this does not matter and would stick to the Wiki - and that's fine
for me.

I have no experience with other Wikis only with WikiMedia but only with
the exact usage of a documentation Wiki and no exports to other formats.
I simply do not believe in the Theory that Wikis per se are better
maintained and more up to date because it is simple.  I just say there
are examples where this works and this is great.  Other examples don't.

My missing trust in the chances to update a Wiki endet up in autogenerated
tasks pages for Debian Med (totally different application) and the Blends
documentation is maintained in the principle I mentioned above (OK, it is
not XML but SGML and not Git but Svn - both is historically caused.)  I'm
happy with patches of newcomers.  The publication process is automated
(`make publish`) and the release proces as well (`make dist`).

Kind regards

       Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de