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.
On Tue 23 Nov 2004, James Green jkg@earth.li wrote:
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?
Kake
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 03:49:55PM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
On Tue 23 Nov 2004, James Green jkg@earth.li wrote:
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?
<!-- 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 -->
On Wed 24 Nov 2004, Earle Martin openguides@downlode.org wrote:
[% IF node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
In other words, have the discussion page for the node "Foo" be called "Talk:Foo"?
Kake
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 01:24:27AM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
On Wed 24 Nov 2004, Earle Martin openguides@downlode.org wrote:
[% IF node.name.match('^Talk:') %]
In other words, have the discussion page for the node "Foo" be called "Talk:Foo"?
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.
On Wed 24 Nov 2004, Earle Martin openguides@downlode.org wrote:
It's then simple to templatamatically give pages with matching titles special features.
I'd rather keep as much logic as possible out of the templates.
Kake
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.
On Nov 25, 2004, at 19:25, Earle Martin wrote:
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.
Tom disagrees. You'd clog the version history of the main page with commentary. It really needs to be a separate page.
El jue, 25-11-2004 a las 18:41, Tom Insam escribió:
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.
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...
On Thu 25 Nov 2004, Tom Insam tom@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
On Thu 25 Nov 2004, Martin Ferrari yo@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
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:13:47 +0000, Kake L Pugh kake@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.
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 04:15, Kake L Pugh 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?
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
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Mart�n Ferrari wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 04:15, Kake L Pugh 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?
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
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
-
Adam Auden -
Earle Martin -
James Green -
justin+openguides＠dicatek.com -
Kake L Pugh -
Martin Ferrari -
Martín Ferrari
-
Tom Insam