On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:28:54AM +0800, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 21:46 +0530, Mani A wrote:
>
> I think any good CMS would lessen the burden on the doc team
> considerably and improve work flow (in comparison with a wiki based
> system).
> Contributors may also have a more polished interface to use.
I don't think we can nor want to replace wiki functionality. There is
something different about a wiki that makes it work better at what it
does than a traditional CMS approach. "All open to everyone in the
community to edit," is really a powerful proposition that a CMS cannot
easily beat. MediaWiki is the best tool at this, I think our
relationship with that tool is going to go on for years.
How about rather than looking for an end-all be all solution, we
find
more than one tool that can all be used together. For example, one part
of the toolchain may be the wiki, while another part may be a
docbook-to-wiki tool, and another could be a DocBook editor...I don't
know what would really work, but it's an idea that may be easier than
finding one software package that does EVERYTHING.
This is what I believe we are trying to do. *Add* a CMS as a
publishing tool to the end of parts that exist and work well.
* Collaborative writing and editing en masse: Wiki
* Collaborative writing and editing of larger guides by a team: Wiki
then DocBook as a hosted project
* Translation: Transifex
* DocBook toolchain: Publican
* Publishing tool: CMS
If the CMS does the other jobs better, and we love it and people are
using it, then sure, we can switch to that. That's a good problem,
not a bad one.
- Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41