Nicely put, I concur.
Jld.
-----Original Message-----
From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
[mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth Porter
Sent: August 9, 2006 13:34
To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
Subject: [Mediawiki-l] Content versus Presentation (was: fighting;WYSIWYG
compatibility)
--On Wednesday, August 09, 2006 7:29 AM -0400 Jean-Lou Dupont
<mediawiki_mailinglist(a)jldupont.com> wrote:
I was merely expressing what I believe is a
requirement (re: WYSIWYG
for corporate environments) that would limit the friction of the
adoption process of MediaWiki. Furthermore, I believe that a full
WYSIWYG presentation layer "a la Pagemaker" is not necessary but at
least a decent table entry tool would be a great start!
This does highlight an important distinction: content versus presentation.
People qualified to do one may not be qualified to do the other. (Do you let
newspaper reporters typeset their own stories?) Even in HTML, tables are
abused to implement both content and presentation.
I would argue against WYSIWYG because it blurs this distinction.
Your example here points out that structural markup is useful to the
content-provider, and so there needs to be some easy way to enter that. But
I think it's a mistake to confuse that with WYSIWYG.
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/413 - Release Date: 08/08/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/413 - Release Date: 08/08/2006