BJörn Lindqvist wrote: > > > Have you studied wikipedia's approach? It's multi-layered and worth > > > learning from (start with their FAQ on editing). > > > > > > (And by the way, I am *not* advocating writing the docs as one big > > > wikipedia -- only the user commentary.) > > > > to clarify, I'm advocating maintaining the docs via a restricted wiki-like > > system, and using a blog-style discussion board or a wiki to collect non- > > specific user commentary. > > Why does it have to be "wiki-like"? Why can't it be a wiki? MediaWiki > seem to work pretty well for a lot of software projects that have put > their documentation in a wiki. Talk pages for commentary and primary > pages for reviewed content. semantics, semantics, semantics (see earlier posts on this topic). but sure, a wiki engine with support for custom source syntax (to support python-oriented semantic markup) and section editing could work. (moinmoin has the former, but not the latter, afaik). </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4