Jan-Hendrik Heuing [NF]
jh at netfielders.de
Thu Apr 14 12:32:55 CEST 2005
>> I just can't believe that a discussion like this comes up while having
>> typo3 doing rich text editing and all sorts of things. Why having a
>> CONTENT MANAGEMENT system which we do not use for documentation?
> Because I am not convinced that this is as easy: Do you want all extension
> authors to have BE access (which is basically required for RTE editing
> until now)?
Well, I haven't tested timtaw yet, but as it is being called a
wiki-extension, I guess it could do the job without too much backend access!
Sebastian / Rob?
Of course it doesn't make sense adding all users as backend users, I would
not do so as well!
>> Beside this being bad advertising, I suggest to more think about how to
>> transfer timtaw-content to docbook or something the like!
> If we want pure client-side documentation writing, exports are not too
> difficult. But the problem is that people want BOTH offline and online
> editing capabilities (so it seems), so we have to fully implement oowriter
> in TYPO3, kinda at least.
Sure, I'd like that too ;) But seriously: Having both ways and you can
choose either way for your documentation sounds like a good idea, but of
course you need to stick to the one way in this case as soon as you started.
Otherwise I see the conflicts you point out.
> It seems like we are having the same goals as those people asking on the
> lists how they can manage a website with TYPO3 by just uploading doc-files
> written by their users... This stinks because TYPO3 is a WEB CMS.
Related to cohiba or no-cigar extensions, it could produce a good or bad
smelly atmosphere.. Sounds like a good idea to me ;)
More information about the TYPO3-team-typo3org