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
Attachment:
pgpdirFPfSivF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
