The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements. Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way. The big table would be overkill imho.
But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
=Title=
Foo
Bar
becomes:
<sect1><title>Title</title>
<para>Foo</para>
<para>Bar</para>
</sect1>
and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run into and send a patch if that happens.
Thanks,
The software is GPL, and if you use it, you could make the data be any license you want. I'm happy to volunteer to host it, but I guess you guys have plenty of resources in that department already.
I think that your using wikipedia software (the new version) would be good for everyone.
David Merrill wrote:
The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements. Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way. The big table would be overkill imho.
But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
=Title=
Foo
Bar
becomes:
<sect1><title>Title</title>
<para>Foo</para>
<para>Bar</para>
</sect1>
and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run into and send a patch if that happens.
Thanks,
-- David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project david@lupercalia.net Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
By the Earth that is Her body By the Air that is Her breath By the Fire of Her bright spirit By the Waters of Her living Womb, The circle is cast. -- Traditional Circle Casting [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:11:43PM -0600, Jimmy Wales wrote:
The software is GPL, and if you use it, you could make the data be any license you want. I'm happy to volunteer to host it, but I guess you guys have plenty of resources in that department already.
I think that your using wikipedia software (the new version) would be good for everyone.
Thanks very much.
If we do in fact go with Wiki (and we're not sure of that) rather than a simpler "edit this page" we roll ourselves, we will be adding to it the ability to convert the tags into DocBook. So:
*item *item *item
becomes
<simplelist> <listitem>item</listitem> <listitem>item</listitem> <listitem>item</listitem> </simplelist>
and so on. Might be of use to you someday if you want to publish something out of Wikipedia in DocBook XML format. Just keep it in mind.
I've already started such a script, 'cause we'll need it regardless.
David Merrill wrote:
The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements. Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way. The big table would be overkill imho.
But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
=Title=
Foo
Bar
becomes:
<sect1><title>Title</title>
<para>Foo</para>
<para>Bar</para>
</sect1>
and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run into and send a patch if that happens.
Thanks,
-- David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project david@lupercalia.net Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
By the Earth that is Her body By the Air that is Her breath By the Fire of Her bright spirit By the Waters of Her living Womb, The circle is cast. -- Traditional Circle Casting [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
- own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
- there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
- pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can *
- certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper *
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook XML format. That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
This, of course, refers to a more innocent earlier time when we actually thought we were going to do heavy semantic markup of Nupedia articles.
Eventually, though, we will, if we can. So, this would be good, David!
Larry
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, David Merrill wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:11:43PM -0600, Jimmy Wales wrote:
The software is GPL, and if you use it, you could make the data be any license you want. I'm happy to volunteer to host it, but I guess you guys have plenty of resources in that department already.
I think that your using wikipedia software (the new version) would be good for everyone.
Thanks very much.
If we do in fact go with Wiki (and we're not sure of that) rather than a simpler "edit this page" we roll ourselves, we will be adding to it the ability to convert the tags into DocBook. So:
*item *item *item
becomes
<simplelist> <listitem>item</listitem> <listitem>item</listitem> <listitem>item</listitem> </simplelist>
and so on. Might be of use to you someday if you want to publish something out of Wikipedia in DocBook XML format. Just keep it in mind.
I've already started such a script, 'cause we'll need it regardless.
David Merrill wrote:
The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements. Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way. The big table would be overkill imho.
But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
=Title=
Foo
Bar
becomes:
<sect1><title>Title</title>
<para>Foo</para>
<para>Bar</para>
</sect1>
and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run into and send a patch if that happens.
Thanks,
-- David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project david@lupercalia.net Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
By the Earth that is Her body By the Air that is Her breath By the Fire of Her bright spirit By the Waters of Her living Womb, The circle is cast. -- Traditional Circle Casting [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
- own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
- there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
- pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can *
- certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper *
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:07:02PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook XML format. That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
This, of course, refers to a more innocent earlier time when we actually thought we were going to do heavy semantic markup of Nupedia articles.
Eventually, though, we will, if we can. So, this would be good, David!
If you want to take 'er for a spin, go to db.linuxdoc.org. Use 'guest,guest' for your username/password. Edit any document meta-data. Click the "Edit (test)" link from within that. You'll get the document's pseudo-wiki edit box.
When you click save it will show you the docbook it rendered.
I'm keeping meta-data separately, as you'll see in the database.
These are valid but are being expanded hourly. ;-)
=Title= <sect1><title>Title</title> <sect1>
=Title|id= <sect1 id='id'><title>Title</title> <sect1>
(works for other sect levels as well)
==Title== <sect2><title>Title</title> </sect2>
===Title=== <sect3><title>Title</title> </sect3>
Foo <para>Foo</para>
#Foo <orderedlist> #Bar <listitem><para>Foo</para></listitem> #Baz <listitem><para>Bar</para></listitem> <listitem><para>Baz</para></listitem> </orderedlist>
*Foo <simplelist> *Bar <listitem><para>Foo</para></listitem> *Baz <listitem><para>Bar</para></listitem> <listitem><para>Baz</para></listitem> </simplelist>
[[foo]] <ulink url='url-to-ldp doc by that id> <citetitle>document-title</citetitle> </ulink>
[[http://foo.org]] <ulink url='http://foo.org'> <citetitle>http://foo.org</citetitle> </ulink>
[[http://foo.org Foo]] <ulink url='http://foo.org'> <citetitle>Foo</citetitle> </ulink>
[Foo] <filename>Foo</filename>
'''Foo''' <emphasis>Foo</emphasis>
<foo></foo> <foo></foo>
Or, you can insert arbitrary DocBook. It cannot be embedded within anything else, though. In other words, you cannot have DocBook and one of the constructs above in the same line.
Any text that starts with "<" is considered docbook, until the close tag is found. Tags can be nested arbitrarily deep. It won't be wrapped with <para> tags or anything, so you'll need to do that manually if you insert DocBook.
As you can see, it's heavily influenced by Wikipedia, my only real wiki experience. :-)
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, David Merrill wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:11:43PM -0600, Jimmy Wales wrote:
The software is GPL, and if you use it, you could make the data be any license you want. I'm happy to volunteer to host it, but I guess you guys have plenty of resources in that department already.
I think that your using wikipedia software (the new version) would be good for everyone.
Thanks very much.
If we do in fact go with Wiki (and we're not sure of that) rather than a simpler "edit this page" we roll ourselves, we will be adding to it the ability to convert the tags into DocBook. So:
*item *item *item
becomes
<simplelist> <listitem>item</listitem> <listitem>item</listitem> <listitem>item</listitem> </simplelist>
and so on. Might be of use to you someday if you want to publish something out of Wikipedia in DocBook XML format. Just keep it in mind.
I've already started such a script, 'cause we'll need it regardless.
David Merrill wrote:
The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
If we were to do that, we would need the licensing situation finally established in concrete terms, as well as attribution requirements. Any really big attribution would be an annoyance, but we'd want to make sure Wikipedia got a mention in all HOWTOs worked on that way. The big table would be overkill imho.
But if we do, I would like to use the Wikipedia software. We want to use the current editing capabilities to output DocBook format, as in:
=Title=
Foo
Bar
becomes:
<sect1><title>Title</title>
<para>Foo</para>
<para>Bar</para>
</sect1>
and so on. How is the software licensed, and can I get access to the cvs? I don't think I'll need commit rights. I'll fix any bugs I run into and send a patch if that happens.
Thanks,
-- David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project david@lupercalia.net Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
By the Earth that is Her body By the Air that is Her breath By the Fire of Her bright spirit By the Waters of Her living Womb, The circle is cast. -- Traditional Circle Casting [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
- own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
- there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
- pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can *
- certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper *
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook XML format. That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for this kind of content. I like it very much for (computer-oriented) technical documentation, but for a more general topic? When used to its full extent DB is also quite baroque, and most of it probably wouldn't be used (for example the GUISUBMENU element <g>). Take a look at URL:http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/part2.html to get an overview of DocBook elements.
A simpler, encylopedia-specific DTD may be better. On the other hand, I don't know of any off-the-shelf DTD that fits this description, and a DocBook-subset may be better supported by other software than any DTD that's just used by Nupedia (and maybe Wikipedia).
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:50:53PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook XML format. That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for this kind of content. I like it very much for (computer-oriented) technical documentation, but for a more general topic? When used to its full extent DB is also quite baroque, and most of it probably wouldn't be used (for example the GUISUBMENU element <g>). Take a look at URL:http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/part2.html to get an overview of DocBook elements.
A simpler, encylopedia-specific DTD may be better. On the other hand, I don't know of any off-the-shelf DTD that fits this description, and a DocBook-subset may be better supported by other software than any DTD that's just used by Nupedia (and maybe Wikipedia).
I agree that any complete-ish implementation of DocBook would be very hard and frought with difficulty. However, being about to export into basic docbook (meaning not much more than links, sections, and <para> tags) would allow the content to be worked into DocBook based publication systems and such, and also the generation of pdf, postscript, and other outputs. And *that* much at least would be fairly easy and worth doing imho.
On 14 Jan 2002, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
This, by the way, would be a great feature for Wikipedia to be able to use; we'd certainly like Wikipedia articles to be convertable to DocBook XML format. That's what we decided we wanted to use as an XML DTD for Nupedia, and surely we'd want to use it for Wikipedia too.
I'm not convinced that DocBook is the best DTD for this kind of content. I like it very much for (computer-oriented) technical documentation, but for a more general topic?
The proposal was to use an augmented version of it; we'd add lots of new elements of our own. Please see the tools-l mailing list archives for more information. There's no point in going over this all again.
--Larry
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:58:36PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
The LDP is talking about whether to set up our own Wiki project for working on HOWTOs. There seems to be quite a bit of interest. I don't know what will come of it yet. I asked whether they're interested in using Wikipedia, but I suspect we need real-time updates and stuff like that, so it wouldn't work very well. Let me know how you feel about this though. We're still discussing it ourselves.
We have decided not to use *any* wiki software. However, I am still basing my text format on the Wikipedia format. So if at any time you want a utility to convert that into DocBook, it's in the LDP cvs all ready and waiting for you. :-)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org