I wanted to comment on an interview on wikimedia foundation but found that I need an invitation to be able to edit the discussion wiki and add my comment!! So I decided to post it here.
The man who invented the Wiki (Ward Cunningham) can not see that its much more important to have a standard wiki-markup or structured text for all wikis before having WYSIWG tools for them. And that such WYSIWYG tool, and many other wonderful tools, need a standard format to work on.
It is very strange that he did not create an organization/body/foundation to help in promoting interoperability, despite his use of "about a dozen wikis". He can't see that today, each and every wiki programmer is desiging his own structured text / wiki-markup implementation for his own wiki. Leaving users locked with one wiki and can not freely migrate between them. Instead every wiki programmer is writing his own implementation of the same thing in a mediocre redudancy.
On the other hand the man who invented the Web (Tim Berners-Lee) founded the w3c in October 1994 to lead the technical revolution. And founded the principles to which allow interoperability, accomodate future technologies and decentralization. Through creating standards that allow the web to communicate with itself.
Anyways, it seems that Cunningham decided to leave it open like a wiki page for the users and developers to decide if they would colaborate on a standard. Or may be wikis are hyped about anyways and they are just tools like any text editor and not a revolutionary platform like the web.
- whirlpool's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 980 reads


wikis are revolutionary
but the thing about wiki is it conatins many different ideas each of them where an eye opener to social software developers, it is these seperate ideas that are revolutionary and they're finding their way in all sorts of webapps seperatly.
the way I think of it Wikis introduced
again Wikis are example of total seperation of policy and mechanism, a wiki gives you mechanism, wiki authors invent policy, many CMS systems are copying this idea (drupal is very much that), Wikis are the only ones where the policy is organic and ever changing and requires no further agreement.
the reason why there is a mess is because porogrammers do see these features or properties as seperate, non of them are the esence of wiki that has to be stabilized at some point in time.
a unified syntax would be nice but any attempt at making a syntax flexible enough to accomodate all needs will simply reinvent XML.
tab3an the situation would probably have been helped if either the first WikiWikiWeb or MediaWiki had the best syntax (seeing as they're obvious leaders) but truth is their syntax sucks in many ways.
cheers,
Alaa
http://www.manalaa.net "i`m feeling for the 2nd time like alice in wonderland reading el wafd"
Is it really important?
I think standardising WikiWiki syntax is not really important. What is important about WikiWiki is not the mechanism, but rather the effect. Here I can identify with what Ala wrote above.
WikiWiki is not the web, and we do not actually need one standardised protocol for it. WYSIWYG developers will have to cope with that, and natural selection will take care of the rest. Necessating a standardisation cycle could slow improvement.
I agree with you on how Wikimedia should be a leader on this, but again this means that you should be actively promoting your criticisms and suggestions for development there; this is how WikiWiki works.
WikiWiki syntax is intended to be simple and not very clever to avoid complexity that will deter potential editors.
After thinking more; a solution could be to keep the user syntax as simple (and impaired) as it is, and have the WikiWiki engines output (and internally store?) their content in XML, which could then properly transformed, styled and dressed up for the human agent (browser), and still have the structure for machine consumption.
This will allow for migration, cross XLinking and querying, and WYSIWYG-tools streamlining as you propose, but this does not have to be reflected in the front-end human UI were clueless people like myself edit. This will also allow for locally brewed WikiWiki versions whose developers would choose whether/when to provide machine interfacing.
I don't see this as reinventing XML, but rather as an application of it read 'schema'.
In this case, however, there will have to be another layer of mechanisms to translate between user syntax and machine/tool syntax.
Did this became (Too complex == too bad)?
What do you think?
I am asking for improvement
I am not asking for increasing the complexity of things. I agree about all what you have said. I myself wouldn't have loved wikis if they were complex to edit. I also agree with Alaa.
I was just saying that if wiki markup is the same on all wikis, wonderful things would happen.
Here is a list of things I think would emerge if this will ever happen:
My rant above came from observing that I can't simply copy and paste what I have written on my personal desktop wiki to other wikis without spending lots of time in adjusting it manually. And after that I would have to adjust it even more to create a presentable PDF using a document preparation system that uses yet another markup.
It didn't feel right. There should be a common markup.
Mostafa Hussein
Is it really important?
When I said complex I was referring to my own free-associated suggestions of storing and processing WikiWiki content as XML, which I believe would answer the needs you addressed in your comment which I'm replying to.
I absolutely agree with you about the missing possibilities.
A defacto standard
... or an unofficial standard, kind of already exists. All wikis look very much the same to me.
I like wikis that understand html thought, I think HTML should be the standard in all wikis, and all the mere mortals can use the weird half baked formatting syntax, supreme immortals like me will use html to format their text.
Actually this might have a nice side effect, as it might discourage the mere mortals from modifying my posts in wikis!
Re: A defacto standard
Exactly!
Us mortals will feel intemidated by your edits and will soon leave the whole dimension for your likes to show off your spacetime-bending manipulations.
But having HTML as the standard WikiWiki syntax voids the thesis of WikiWiki, no?
On the other hand, having very smart engines that can present different editable UIs to different people from a base of XML-stored content could be great. This way, when mortals click "edit" they will be presented with whatever Wiki Syntax this particular implementations adopts, and when a superuser logs in and wants to edit, he will be presented with a richer syntax (XHTML or even XML for the perverts). But what would he use this extra capabilities for when in fact the model itself is much simpler?