Quoting Peter Easthope (2020-01-23 17:22:49) > A friend asked about setting up a wiki for development of a relatively > simple document. Mostly text. Possibly a few illustrations. Running > on a personal machine or a hosting service; not determined yet. > Authenticated access to a large group of people; not public. > > MediaWiki is an obvious possibility. Too complex? MoinMoin as used > for wiki.debian.org isn't so visually appealing; just a configuration > choice? Many others. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software
There are lots of options. Right one depends on many factors. Rich expressivity of character placement - e.g. ability to express mathematical equations or specific kerning (i.e. character spacing)? Rich expressivity of content layout - e.g. placement or coloring or size of all or specific headlines or footers? Conformity of content layout - e.g. that 4 classes of document each follow a unique layout, and only two of them may contain custom deviations? Reuse of content - e.g. maintaining a footer common across all pages, adding a sidebar to all blog entries, another sidebar to the bio page, and no sidebar on frontpage? Administration - I agree with Dan that if your friend should not only edit content but also _maintain_ the service, then you want something not only easy to _use_, and a simple rule of thumb is then to steer clear of solutions requiring a database backend. Security - if the service is public accessible and your friend is not a skilled admin, then (unlike Dan) I consider Docuwiki a bad choice because it executes code based on what each visitor requests, and the code executed is PHP which has a bad track record of security flaws. Maybe when only a closed group gets access it is ok, but I would still be worried... I recommend to first consider solutions that generates a static website each time content is edited. One of the first to do that was Ikiwiki. It is old and its default style is boring, and its user editing interface can feel clunky - but style can be easily changed to something more fancy (my partner and I made e.g. http://bsg.biks.dk/ ), and most other static web compilers lack the web-based editing interface included with Ikiwiki which I find important for projects where some of the content editors are not comfortable using a console-based interface. If you want to edit locally but push to a cloud service, you can do that with Ikiwiki and https://www.branchable.com/ or and popular alternatives like hugo, jekyll, and nanoc. For more technical "groupware" things mabe consider fossil or redmine. Personally I've used MoinMoin in the past (and introduced it to Debian many many years ago) but nowadays _only_ use static web compilers - mostly¹ Ikiwiki. If I could live without the web-based editing interface then I would first consider hakyll (for its powerful content parser based on Pandoc), and then hugo (for being extremely fast). - Jonas ¹ Where I don't use Ikiwiki I instead use a Makefile and pandoc, or mkdocs. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
