Re: replacing static-site-generator with Tiki

Saša Janiška <gour-XQYBc/g6bItWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:46:12 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.cms.tiki.user
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:22:14 -0400
Marc Laporte <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Marc,

> Nice to see you back!

Nice to see you are still around! ;)


> Interesting to read the pros and cons of SSGs. I'd love Tiki to
> become a SSG:
> https://dev.tiki.org/Static-Site-Generator

That's interesting, although I'd have nothing against just having some
standard markup support in Tiki. Moreover, there are (Tiki) features
like search, forms, calendars/events...which are usually not part of
SSG and I want to have them...

> About more standard markup: We discussed this at the recent TikiFest:
> https://tiki.org/TikiFest2018-Montreal#Wiki_Parsers_and_WYSIWYG

Yeah, I saw it.

> We can't change our text syntax every few Tiki versions.

That's clear.

> But it's
> been 16 years since Tiki started, and the Web is a very different
> place. So we could move to something else and have something like a 5
> year overlap where Tiki syntax and something else would be supported.
> And people would get another 5 years via a Long Term Support version.
> Or maybe we support both forever. There would be a selector on each
> page, so editors could start new pages with new syntax and
> progressively convert old pages. Some tools can be added to assist
> but these things need manual review.

That would be nice.

> A very good thing is that our 150+ wiki plugins are all very
> consistent and wouldn't need to change. So we "just" need to worry
> about the wiki markup like bold, italic, etc.

Cool!

> Any initiative must be done taking into account the rich text editor
> aspect: http://wysiwygproblems.com/

For me there is no doubt that WYSIWYG is inferior to using wiki or
some other markup syntax.

> One generally accepted idea at the TikiFest is to add a wiki plugin
> for CommonMark
> https://packagist.org/packages/league/commonmark

Any reason for not supporting Markdown which is quite popular within
PHP community, supported by Pandoc etc. and bringing stuff like
footnotes, tables etc.?

Btw, I also found the following:

https://packagist.org/packages/erusev/parsedown-extra

https://packagist.org/packages/michelf/php-markdown

so it looks that Markdown Extra could be supported in a same/similar
manner?

> It will be interesting to see if/how people will use, and how it would
> interact with other wiki plugins.

I believe that it is the area which can make Tiki more attractive to
new users.

> About offline editing: Next logical step is:
> https://dev.tiki.org/Progressive-Web-App

This could be interesting for some/many people, but, personally, I'm
not so much into it...after many years of using computer, I do realize
that I'm returning to many things with which I have started my journey
long ago...like Debian, Emacs, Gnus...Tiki included. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction,
is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position,
although engaged in all sorts of activities.

_______________________________________________
TikiWiki-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-users
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)