Preferred Post Formatting?

  1. Choice:

You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 11, 2008 at 00:42 UTC - 0 likes

    (replying to Dashkal) What we could do is support BBCode (or plaintext or something) as the default for people without Javascript, but if you do have it, load up the WYSIWYG parser.

  • Avatar of Kaelten Kaelten Nov 11, 2008 at 00:40 UTC - 0 likes

    I prefer shifting the content portions of the site into basically a huge namespaced wiki.

    My personal idea atm is to use a subset of mediawiki the provides all the needed functionality for the moment and then work our way forward as time goes on.

    Add to this a revamp to the other parsers and the addition of a few more and the ability to set your default preference in your profile and I think things would be good.

    WowAce.com & CurseForge.com Adminstrator
    Check out my new addon, OneChoice, it helps you pick quest rewards faster.
    Developer of Ace3, OneBag3, and many other addons and libraries
    Project lead and Mac developer for the Curse Client

  • Avatar of Azethoth Azethoth Nov 11, 2008 at 00:36 UTC - 0 likes

    Well the things I miss are:

    • Some kind of link shortcut. [[SomePageName]] or whatever.
    • Some kind of common sandbox for the "wiki" pages. For instance, right now it sucks trying to find docs because it may be on curse, or some combo of curse + old.wowace. If its on old then its also outdated in general and I cannot even fix it without copying over stuff after getting added to a project. Some projects like AceConfig I should not and probably can not get added to and yet their pages scream for many little updates and consolidation of discussion thread tidbits into the docs + realistic linking between various pages.
    • This also does bring up the history and control wiki allows. Does the wysi stuff do the same? For some stuff it doesnt matter. Stuff like the actual Ace3 pages need more moderation probably.
    • Ideally there is seamless in-page browsing between project pages, forums, whatever "wiki" thing we use. Forums->something else pops up a new browser window at the moment which totally and completely sucks.
    • It would also be nice if subsidiary pages in the "wiki" can be seen. So for instance if ...myLib is the root, and there is myLib/API and myLib/Sample then I can somehow get a listing that has all 3 pages, regardless of the pages themselves linking properly.

    So I am happy with anything that accomodates all or most of this.

  • Avatar of Dashkal Dashkal Nov 11, 2008 at 00:32 UTC - 0 likes

    On further consideration I moved my vote to WYSIWYG. Much as I prefer to avoid js, a WYSIWYG formatter is simply easier to use. I do like the dual idea you mentioned, though.

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 11, 2008 at 00:28 UTC - 0 likes

    Btw, we could support a dual TinyMCE-BBCode thing with http://wiki.moxiecode.com/index.php/T.../bbcode

  • Avatar of Dashkal Dashkal Nov 11, 2008 at 00:18 UTC - 0 likes

    Voted BBCode as I've already learned it and it doesn't require me to turn on js

    Edit: Changed my vote.

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 11, 2008 at 00:06 UTC - 0 likes

    moonwitch, that'd be plaintext, raw html, or WYSIWYG, really.

  • Avatar of Kaelten Kaelten Nov 11, 2008 at 00:06 UTC - 0 likes

    she lives!

  • Avatar of moonwitch moonwitch Nov 11, 2008 at 00:02 UTC - 0 likes

    The fastest, non-server-load-increasing option would be nice :P

  • Avatar of ckknight ckknight Nov 10, 2008 at 23:56 UTC - 0 likes

    This is brought up because MediaWiki's format is horribly documented and doesn't have a proper grammar. There is no standard parser for MediaWiki in Python (or any language, for that matter). CurseForge/WowAce's custom parsing system for Wiki-format is very slow and inextensible. Trying to make it faster or extend it would take many weeks which I think could be spent better elsewhere.

    Instead of worrying about parsers and all, I think switching to a WYSIWYG format would be better overall, since (a) it's mostly done for us (b) overall, it's easy to use over wiki syntax.

    Some things to note that if we do implement a WYSIWYG system:

    • Alternative browsers _will_ be supported. Firefox 3.x+, IE 7+, Safari 3.x+, Opera 9.6+
    • You'd still be able to use Raw HTML

Facts

Posted on
Nov 10, 2008
Voted on
311 times