23 Nov
2004
23 Nov
'04
2:50 a.m.
Hi,
People interested in projects similar to OpenGuides might be interested
to see http://wiki.ournottingham.net/, whose creator apparently felt
that http://nottingham.openguides.org/ didn't quite fulfill Nottingham's
collaborative-city-guide needs[1].
It uses MediaWiki, which is cool in some ways (discussion tabs!) but
lacks features I for one consider important in OpenGuides (structured
metadata, x-y coordinates) and apparently the content it released under
the GFDL, though this information is hard to find without a spot of
digging.
While we're on the subject, does anyone know if the GFDL and CC by-sa
2.0 licence are "compatible" in either direction? That is to say, can
content from either of these guides be easily included in the other? My
rough understanding of the licences suggests not, but IANAL.
Cheers,
James
[1] Grumble. This "providing content" lark sure is hard.
--
jkg((-.+)?@(|the\.)earth.li|@(jimbo|wonky)\.org\.uk|03u@cs\.nott\.ac\.uk)
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
24 Nov
24 Nov
1:21 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:49:55PM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
On Tue 23 Nov 2004, James Green <jkg(a)earth.li>
wrote:
<!-- Begin TT code - warning, not tested -->
[% IF node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
[% original_node_name = node.name.replace('^Talk:', '') %]
<a href="[% full_cgi_url %]?[% original_node_name %]">
[% END %]
Article
[% IF node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
</a>
[% END %]
[% UNLESS node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
<a href="[% full_cgi_url %]?Talk:[% node.name %]">
[% END %]
Discuss
[% UNLESS node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
</a>
[% END %]
<!-- End TT code -->
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.oclc.org/net/earlemartin/
It uses MediaWiki, which is cool in some ways
(discussion tabs!)
I would not be against having discussion tabs in OpenGuides - anyone
got any ideas for a nice way to implement this?
1:18 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 01:24:27AM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
On Wed 24 Nov 2004, Earle Martin
<openguides(a)downlode.org> wrote:
Maybe, maybe not; I just ripp^H^H^H^Hborrowed that idea from MediaWiki. We
could call them anything we like, but general idea is as simple as having a
certain name prefix to create a new "namespace". It's then simple to
templatamatically give pages with matching titles special features.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.oclc.org/net/earlemartin/
[% IF node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
In other words, have the discussion page for the node "Foo" be called
"Talk:Foo"?
25 Nov
25 Nov
7:25 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 04:21:05PM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
I'd rather keep as much logic as possible out of
the templates.
In conversation yesterday, Kake told me of her idea to store discussion
pages in a special metadata field that is read and displayed and formatted
and edited just like a normal node content field, by giving the special
argument action=discuss to the script. I like this idea a lot.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.oclc.org/net/earlemartin/
9:41 p.m.
On Nov 25, 2004, at 19:25, Earle Martin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 04:21:05PM +0000, Kake L Pugh
wrote:
Tom disagrees. You'd clog the version history of the main page with
commentary. It really needs to be a separate page.
I'd rather keep as much logic as possible out
of the templates.
In conversation yesterday, Kake told me of her idea to store discussion
pages in a special metadata field that is read and displayed and
formatted
and edited just like a normal node content field, by giving the special
argument action=discuss to the script. I like this idea a lot. 
26 Nov
26 Nov
2:34 a.m.
El jue, 25-11-2004 a las 18:41, Tom Insam escribió:
I agree with Tom, a commentary should not make a new version of the main
node. I think the Mediawiki approach is a good one. You can, of course,
create a separate namespace for comments, but I think it would be harder
to do.
My $ 0.2...
In
conversation yesterday, Kake told me of her idea to store discussion
pages in a special metadata field that is read and displayed and
formatted
and edited just like a normal node content field, by giving the special
argument action=discuss to the script. I like this idea a lot.
Tom disagrees. You'd clog the version history of the main page with
commentary. It really needs to be a separate page. 
7:15 a.m.
On Thu 25 Nov 2004, Martin Ferrari <yo(a)martinferrari.com.ar> wrote:
I think the Mediawiki approach is a good one. You can,
of course,
create a separate namespace for comments, but I think it would be
harder to do.
Isn't creating a separate namespace for comments ("Talk:Foo") exactly
what Mediawiki does?
Kake
1:22 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 04:15, Kake L Pugh wrote:
Well, not exactly as I see it, is more of a convention. A separate
namespace could be implemented adding a nodetype metadata, so the
comments page would be also Foo, but with nodetype=comments
I think the
Mediawiki approach is a good one. You can, of course,
create a separate namespace for comments, but I think it would be
harder to do.
Isn't creating a separate namespace for comments ("Talk:Foo") exactly
what Mediawiki does? 
29 Nov
29 Nov
9:57 p.m.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Mart�n Ferrari wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 04:15, Kake L Pugh wrote:
Well, not exactly as I see it, is more of a convention. A separate
namespace could be implemented adding a nodetype metadata, so the
comments page would be also Foo, but with nodetype=comments
If one kept comments in a second and separate database, having the node
name be the same would work easily...
Justin
I think
the Mediawiki approach is a good one. You can, of course,
create a separate namespace for comments, but I think it would be
harder to do.
Isn't creating a separate namespace for comments ("Talk:Foo") exactly
what Mediawiki does?
26 Nov
26 Nov
7:13 a.m.
On Thu 25 Nov 2004, Tom Insam <tom(a)jerakeen.org> wrote:
Tom disagrees. You'd clog the version history of
the main page with
commentary. It really needs to be a separate page.
Just make it a different type of edit that isn't displayed in the
history by default, same way as minor tidying only shows up in recent
changes if you ask for it.
Kake
8:59 a.m.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:13:47 +0000, Kake L Pugh <kake(a)earth.li> wrote:
Just make it a different type of edit that isn't
displayed in the
history by default, same way as minor tidying only shows up in recent
changes if you ask for it.
Indeed, sounds nifty. Would be good to preserve the metadata about
the last 'real' edit though, not the last comment.
A.
--
Adam Auden - UNIX Metal Geek
whois bimble.net
6756
days inactive
6762
days old
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adam Auden -
Earle Martin -
James Green -
justin+openguides＠dicatek.com -
Kake L Pugh -
Martin Ferrari -
Martín Ferrari
-
Tom Insam