As a small experiment, I've installed MediaWiki on my server and imported a few of the main pages. It doesn't yet make use of any of the more 'advanced' features (such as categories and templates), but it does support user accounts (password-protected, no less) and a more friendly interface.
http://nesdevwiki.ath.cx/
Comments are welcome - if it is decided to migrate to MediaWiki (most likely manually, as there do not appear to be any auto-import scripts and much of the markup is different), the database on my server could be easily transferred onto this site.
This looks just a clone of Wikipedia.
It would be "Wikipedia for NESdev", right ?
Lots of wikis use MediaWiki - Wikipedia is only one of them. I happen to prefer MediaWiki over others, particularly over 'Tavi, which looks very plain and boring and is severely lacking in features.
Quietust wrote:
I happen to prefer MediaWiki over others
Same here.
At work we have servers which use both MediaWiki and
TWiki. Our IT guys are trying to migrate everything to TWiki; they claim it's more 'secure' or something. But i'd be happy to hear about anyone who had experience with both. TWiki seems a bit more powerful, but that might be just because i've used it more. But it also doesn't seem as fancy-looking.
I, for one, find bare-bones web pages (HTML+images) to be refreshing since they deliver the goods (information) without wasting any time on eye candy. They load quickly and work in any browser. But, the current Wiki doesn't (I think) even support images, so I support migration to different Wiki software, even if it requires manual transfer of the current content. The Wiki Quietust has up looks decent to me. It handles a narrow browser window just fine.
blargg wrote:
I, for one, find bare-bones web pages (HTML+images) to be refreshing since they deliver the goods (information) without wasting any time on eye candy. They load quickly and work in any browser.
I totally agree. But i like when text is well-formatted and pleasing to the eye. Again, showing my bias only due to experience, TWiki makes it very easy to have a consistent text layout and flow with very little work. I'm sure MediaWiki is the same. Creating tables and headings and lists and outlines is dead-simple; it just works. And that's important on a project like this, collaborative and contribution-based.
Especially when so many people are familiar with the ins and outs of MediaWiki thanks to
one extremely high-profile instance.
blargg wrote:
I, for one, find bare-bones web pages (HTML+images) to be refreshing since they deliver the goods (information) without wasting any time on eye candy. They load quickly and work in any browser. But, the current Wiki doesn't (I think) even support images, so I support migration to different Wiki software, even if it requires manual transfer of the current content. The Wiki Quietust has up looks decent to me. It handles a narrow browser window just fine.
I agree.
If MediaWiki generates XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 1.0 Strict code then newer light browsers and cell phones will be able to handle things just fine.
The big problem with using Strict doctypes is that HTML 4 mistakenly deprecated the value attribute of the li element, which means that like other deprecated attributes, the attribute was removed entirely from HTML 4 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. Without the value attribute, there's no way to start an ordered list at, say, 0.
tepples wrote:
The big problem with using Strict doctypes is that HTML 4 mistakenly deprecated the value attribute of the li element, which means that like other deprecated attributes, the attribute was removed entirely from HTML 4 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. Without the value attribute, there's no way to start an ordered list at, say, 0.
I would consider renumbering a style issue for CSS.
danimal wrote:
I would consider renumbering a style issue for CSS.
Except for two things:
- No publicly available web browsers support CSS counters.
- If the first track of the album Follow the Leader by KoRn is numbered 13, then starting its track list at 13 is part of the content, not part of the presentation.