openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: Propose to Integrate Old OO Wiki and New AOO Wiki
Date Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:14:36 GMT
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, TJ Frazier <> wrote:

> On 6/10/2012 12:51, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 01:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> < <mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.**org<>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> +1 on MediaWiki
>>> The convergence on the Community Wiki was considered early in the
>>> migration and it was concluded that would not be done. �Kay Schenk
>>> might have much to add on that, based on her interest then and
>>> experience since.
>>> �- Dennis
>>> Well, oddly, I don't have much of a dissenting opinion.
>>> I personally don't use the OO MW much, but have been using the cwiki a
>>> lot. I find it less quirky than MW to tell you the truth.
>>> I would be much much better to only maintain ONE wiki though regardless
>>> of what it is.
>>> Mostly I use the "Project Planning" area.
>>> So,
>>> +1 on only one wiki, and given the scope of MW over cwiki, I'm happy to
>>> go with MW providing the existing info -- marketing, planning, etc.
>>> gets moved
>> I would like to add one more thought/request on this topic.
>> I've actually used Confluence -- the cwiki environment -- more over the
>> course of my wiki work than MediaWiki, but there are pros and cons to
>> each.
>> What I REALLY like about our current cwiki setup, is the apparently
>> automatic navigation generation feature. So, when you add a page under a
>> category, you can quickly see what other pages are there for that area.
>> This makes putting ideas "out there" very quick and efficient.
>> I don't know MW provides in this this regard. But features like this
>> make using cwki for planning pretty easy since there's no futzing with
>> filing into categories etc. SO, if there is a way to do this same kind
>> of thin in MW, we should definitely enable such a feature.
>>  Hi, Kay,
> IIUC, the automatic nav in cwiki is a genealogical thing: every page has a
> parent, and that's what the nav display shows. That is easier than
> categories — if you only want one category for that page. Mwiki is less
> convenient, but gives you more control.

Well that's what the popular opinion here seems to be.

> You /can/ create child pages, using the "slash" (/) notation; see my user
> page [1] for several examples. On the child page, you get breadcrumbs at
> the top.

OK, I'll look at this

> While I admit I'm biased, I doubt that the cwiki nav scales well;

I can't speak to that. I sued it in my former employment. But, it was not
the "public facing" entity. I know MW is really that among other things.

it's good for a small number of pages, but as the information gets richer,
> it gets harder to find.

OK, thanks for this information. I actually did try to find some
information about the navigator path business in the MW docs, but nothing
jumped out at me.

I fully realize that maintaining these two entities for our use is NOT
optimal. Not at all. I'm fine with exclusive use of MW thought I will miss
some of the cwiki features.

> [1] <****TJFrazier<>
> >
> /tj/


"Everything will be all right in the end...
      if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
             -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message