lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On 20/02/2008 00:27, Petite Abeille wrote:
 Anyway, the reasons I would
consider that wiki are:  1) it painstakingly emulates the current Lua
wiki markup;

Is such wiki markup documented anywhere? Is there any existing Lua library to handle it?

Personally, I wouldn't mind to change markup, I know Markdown, and nearly each wiki has its own rules anyway.

To answer your first question, see

 2) it preserves idioms of the current wiki (e.g.
clicking on title yields referring pages);

Then Nanoki is not for you if this is such a show stopper :))

Clicking on the page title leads to the editor, the most likely action you want to perform on a wiki page.

As a user, I don't find it very intuitive, I just expect a good old Edit link... "Hiding" functionalities isn't a hot idea, IMHO.

 3) its interface and
usability are very simple (e.g. simple preferences page, registration
not required for editing);

Hmmm... why a preference page?

Just check it...

You can make less anonymous edits, choose a time zone to display the dates (would be nice to be able to choose date format too), size of edit area and some styling choices, and options for viewing history.

 and 4) it is strict about web standards.

Any wiki engine can be strict about web standards... but... a wiki is mostly defined by the free form content that people put there... there is not much a wiki engine can do to prevent invalid HTML in a free form text without undesirable obstructionism...

Mmm? I believe HTML should be deactivated (escaped) in a wiki, or at least strictly controlled. I don't want to find a YouTube video on a wiki page (unless allowed by the wiki owner) or iframes or such. So if all pages are fully generated, they could/should adhere to Web standards.

If I use on my user page, I see three minor issues, the lack of alt attribute on the images I have put. If I do the same on I find one error.
It is because I typed <>
Lua-users auto-link the URL but thinks > is part of the URL. But the generated HTML is correct, syntax wise.
Nanoki keeps the < without transforming it to &lt;

That illustrates the problem of not escaping HTML. Invalid HTML typed by user breaks page. I tried and embedded a Flash object in my page on Nanoki. As said above, I am not sure it is such a good idea...

Of course, other pages validated OK (I see you insert empty alt tags).

> But they could learn from wiki's experience. What specific
> anti-spam technics does use presently?

I see in the edit page:

ATTENTION if your purpose is SEO / search engine optimization / pageranking:

* any sites you link to will be added to a blacklist used by a network of wiki's
    * inappropriate links will be promptly removed
    * this wiki's page history and diffs are not crawled by search engines

Also... is the full source code of the current wiki implementation available anywhere?

First impression (home page) on the wiki: looks clean. But I am not fan of light gray links, I would use this color for visited links instead. Now, that's a question of taste, and perhaps because I use this color for comments in my code... Just a minor quibble.

Philippe Lhoste
--  (near) Paris -- France
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --