| 1. No threading. On several occasions I have made comments in a Wiki | that were subsequently ignored - I guess because they got lost in the
and from the WikiNG proposal:
For more elaborate editorial and commentary annotations, i can see layered documents, using mixin objects that provide a tailored view on other or contained objects. The mixin would be a layer by which annotations are associated with text passages in the rendered subject document, like "the crit system":http://crit.org does for arbitrary web pages.
Overall, document authors could use a particular annotation structure according to their needs. Eg, discussion objects for points which can be discussed, or brief editorial passages to give feedback, and author checkmarks for when they've satisfied or refute the suggestions, etc.
Annotation is a spiffy kind of threading.
I dont actually have anything against Wikis in general; I have used on very successfully for what I would describe as "document refinement", and a better annotation scheme will enhance that use of Wikis. The passage you quoted uses terms like "subject document", and at the moment I dont see that as the best model for a *debate*
| 2. No personal replies. On several occasions I would have liked to
From WikiNG:
- Attribution of changes for tracking
With attribution, you can identify and could respond directly to the author of a particular passage. It's useful for more, of course.
Cool, I missed that one.
| 3. No update notification. The one time I was update to
| 4. Hard to keep track of many Wikis: Each wiki has its own 'whats
The ability to subscribe for notification (above) and/or to track what you personally have seen, and not, is intended for this kind of thing.
It would keep me happy if the notification includes a link to the new content (rather than a link to the page that contains new content). Even better, the email notification could *include* the new content.
| 6. Too easy to miss the creation of a Wiki. On several occasions
My plans for notification subscriptions would be hierarchical, and enable you to subscribe to events like creations of new wikis within a hierarchy - so if you subscribe at the top of the wiki space, you find out about any new wikis, while if you subscribe within the developer's part of the space, you learn about new developers wikis. Etc. (This was not covered in the WikiNG proposal - i was trying to avoid including too many details, and failed miserably anyway...-)
Im happy.
| 9. I never get the structured text quoting of python source right | first time.
The only quoting you need to know is example::
The two colons after the word "example" indicate that this contained block is all quoted.
Ill remember that. Your proposed new attribution scheme would help too.
As i said in my last reply (but after you posted this, so you couldn't have taken it into account), mailling lists as they stand don't work for establishing growing structures.
But Wikis don't (for me, today) work for loosely structured commentry. Quoting from http://dev.zope.org/Fishbowl/Introduction.html
In some cases a mailing list will be setup for substantive, large-scale projects. Otherwise existing mailing lists can be leveraged (for now, use zope-dev for this).
Perhaps I should rephrase my objection..... The *real* problem is that this isnt happening - discussion is stored in Wiki pages like http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/XxxxDiscussion