Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence WikiAgain?

[Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>]

 Hello TJ;

 Just looking "for fun" at the conversion tool:

 https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/UWC/UWC+Mediawiki+Notes

 Particularly the featues section:

 Templates would certainly be trouble.
 Math macros are supported, but we need to install the
 Latex plugin in Confluence.(Not installed by default)

 Cheers,

 Pedro.

 On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:11:40 -0400, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> 
 wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 18:12, Rob Weir wrote:
 ...
>
> <snip>
>> Another option to consider is that of content translation: MediaWiki
>> to Confluence.  Remember. Confluence is fully supported by Apache
>> Infra.  We would also find a lot of people on the list who could 
>> help
>> write and test wiki text conversion code.  It is just string
>> manipulation, right?  How hard can that be?  Even I can help with
>> that.
>>
>> But seriously, the MW plans were always precarious.  We did not have 
>> a
>> deep bench of expertise on the sys admin side of that package.  Even
>> if we have a volunteer or two step in now, aren't we still rather
>> thin?  Wouldn't we still be one "life change" away from being back
>> where we are now?  But if we can figure out a content-level 
>> migration
>> to Confluence wiki, then we would have something much more 
>> sustainable
>> long term.
>>
>> Just an idea.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
> My question is, "Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki /at all?/ "
>
> Q: Why does everybody use Cwiki?
> A: Infra supports it.
> Q: Why does Infra support Cwiki?
> A: Everybody uses it.
> Hmm. "Very interesting," as Arte Johnson used to say.
>
> *Personal gripes.*
> My biggest gripe with Cwiki is the help; the file is neither
> searchable nor editable (do that in Mwiki to see how an example
> /really/ works); it is also in need of some serious editing. (To be
> fair, I have not yet explored their User Guide, but I will.) It is 
> not
> clear to me that Apache users are best served by Confluence.
>
> *Conversion problems.*
> Terry sized this as "man-years of effort". I agree.
> Going the other way (Cwiki to Mwiki) should be, as Rob wrote, "just
> string manipulation", because MW is richer in features than CW, so a
> good translation possibility exists. It may not exist in reverse.
>
> One big snag is the MW templates, which are used for everything from
> copyright attribution to inter-page tables of contents. Given that 
> the
> output of any MW artifact is displayable HTML, it is /possible/ to
> convert to a CW page that looks exactly like the MW page. However,
> offering the functionality of being able to add a line to a TOC
> template, and have everything else happen automatically ... that's
> hard. (Please note that 'possible' != 'reasonable'.)
>
> Then there are smaller things, like sortable tables (on all columns,
> too!). In MW, that's 'class = "prettytable"' -> 'class = "prettytable
> sortable"'; just add the one word. <snide> Can CW do it at all?
> </snide>
>
> The <math> ... </math> feature is of some use in explaining the more
> abstruse Calc functions (in FAQ pages). The major user is the Math
> Guide's wiki version. (I maintain that document.) Not really an
> essential element, but nice.
>
> I have little doubt that a serious conversion survey will turn up a
> number of such problems.
>
> *Migration problems.*
> There are some technical problems with the migration (that is,
> running MW at Apache); most of those appear to have short- and
> long-term solutions. I will save the details for a more technical
> thread, and/or the wiki.