Mailing List Archive

On 17 Oct 2004, at 09:29, Shanti Braford wrote:

> I'm willing to pay someone $150 for them to modify the default
> MediaWiki to something very simple. Trust me, I'm looking for a very
> basic site look.

...which rather begs the question: why MediaWiki specifically? While
I'm enough of a fan to use it for a collaborative project myself, I
hope Brion et al will not be offended if I describe it as... er...
'large and complex.' It's big enough to be overkill for most projects,
including mine, and I've expended considerable effort turning bits off
and hiding others in an attempt to avoid scaring off my users. It's
still not as simple as I'd like.

If simplicity of look and use were more important - and in your case it
sounds like they are - I'd be more tempted to look at packages like
Instiki:
<http://www.instiki.org/show/HomePage>
...or maybe Wikka:
<http://wikka.jsnx.com/HomePage>
...or the similar Wakko:
<http://wackowiki.com/WackoDownload/InEnglish>
(at least the last of these integrates a simple editor markup helper)

There are, of course, rather a lot of options:
<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiEngines>
...of which this is a something like an 'edited highlights' list:
<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TopTenWikiEngines>

--
Jonathan Sanderson
'If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.' (Pascal)

Indeed. It also can be slow on some systems (furc.zapto.org).

One thing I want to do is extract the parser and use it as a web tool.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:26:30 +0100, Jonathan Sanderson
<lists@quernstone.com> wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2004, at 09:29, Shanti Braford wrote:
>
> > I'm willing to pay someone $150 for them to modify the default
> > MediaWiki to something very simple. Trust me, I'm looking for a very
> > basic site look.
>
> ...which rather begs the question: why MediaWiki specifically? While
> I'm enough of a fan to use it for a collaborative project myself, I
> hope Brion et al will not be offended if I describe it as... er...
> 'large and complex.' It's big enough to be overkill for most projects,
> including mine, and I've expended considerable effort turning bits off
> and hiding others in an attempt to avoid scaring off my users. It's
> still not as simple as I'd like.
>
> If simplicity of look and use were more important - and in your case it
> sounds like they are - I'd be more tempted to look at packages like
> Instiki:
> <http://www.instiki.org/show/HomePage>
> ...or maybe Wikka:
> <http://wikka.jsnx.com/HomePage>
> ...or the similar Wakko:
> <http://wackowiki.com/WackoDownload/InEnglish>
> (at least the last of these integrates a simple editor markup helper)
>
> There are, of course, rather a lot of options:
> <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiEngines>
> ...of which this is a something like an 'edited highlights' list:
> <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TopTenWikiEngines>
>
> --
> Jonathan Sanderson
> 'If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.' (Pascal)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:25:39 -0400, Jamie Bliss
<astronouth7303@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I want to do is extract the parser and use it as a web tool.

Then you should look into the work going towards a proper
bison/yacc-generated, XML-outputting parser - have a hunt through the
archives of this list. The current "parser" is a hideously muddled
intertwining of regexes, options, database lookups, and special cases,
and using it outside of the rest of the wiki software would probably
amount to rewriting it from scratch.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]