#181 Guidelines to link to wiki for discussion and user examples

RED
closed-rejected
1
2011-08-08
2009-04-03
No

TEI Council discussed that it should investigate the technical details of implementing a system whereby any reference page, or optionally chapter/section/xml:id'ed thing?, can be linked to a page on the wiki where users can discuss their uses of the element, post examples, and provide other forms of targetted user-submitted content.

For example, the reference page on relatedItem might have a URL at the TEI Wiki like:

http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Guidelines:en/ref/relatedItem

This page is currently (at time of writing) empty and contains the text "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page", which could enable us to know in advance whether the page already has any content in it if we desired to have the text be 'See/Add Comments' or something like 'Write a Comment'. Or, we could just have it say 'Wiki page on this element' Additionally we could create a mediawiki template for such pages which contained other content...perhaps including a pointer back to the appropriate place in the TEI guidelines.

Section headings in the Guidelines have URLs like
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/HD.html#HD4C

so would require some form of URL on the wiki like:

http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Guidelines:en/HD/HD4C

Where people could talk about this section on the <creation> element.

Whether we want to do this for things which are not reference pages is still under discussion, as is whether this is a good idea at all. I simply record it here so we don't forget to examine it.

-James

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2009-08-01
    • assigned_to: nobody --> jcummings
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2010-07-06
    • milestone: --> 871209
     
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2010-09-14

    I'm closing this ticket because there have been no followup comments in over a year and no one seems particularly interested in it. (And I was the requestor.)

     
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2010-09-14
    • milestone: 871209 --> RED
    • status: open --> open-rejected
     
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2010-09-14
    • status: open-rejected --> closed-rejected
     
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2010-09-14

    re-opened at request of Laurent Romary, but leaving status as RED for now.

     
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2010-09-14
    • status: closed-rejected --> open-rejected
     
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2011-08-08
    • status: open-rejected --> closed-rejected
     
  • Piotr Banski

    Piotr Banski - 2011-08-08

    Let me just register some issues that come to mind. I'm not trying to say that this is a bad idea -- I can see its advantages. But there some things that make it potentially troublesome, some of them more serious, some less.

    * technically, I think it would be better to come up with two new namespaces (multiplied by the number of languages used) in the wiki, rather than with the sort of nested subdocuments that you propose; at least searching may be easier;
    * I'm somewhat concerned with the persistence of valid information: there is no active wiki community, which would clean up such pages after an upgrade of the Guidelines; it is hard to expect whoever fixes/expands something in the Guidelines to edit the corresponding wiki pages; the potential result being that the content of the wiki pages may quickly become misleading wrt the content of the given element definition/description;
    * the proposed naming of the chapter/section-related pages exposes the internal naming used in the Guidelines, to no obvious advantage; if at all, it might make sense to have a single wiki page per chapter, with subsections, in that wiki page, for subsections in the given chapter, with full subsection titles rather than IDs; but still the previous point applies here;

    This kind of Web 2.0 extensions needs an active community already at the beginning, because it is increasingly difficult to clean up accumulated editorial mess. I don't see such a community in our wiki, and I am not really convinced that providing wiki links in this manner is a way to extend it.