On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:02:36 +0200, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
So the 5% errors is not that bad.. With network tools I think we can improve the model. The good thing about programming in XWiki is that you can have much more easily experienced people review what end-users have done. People that have the content knowledge can more easily share the work with people that are the programmers. They can work together in the same tool.. This is not the case of the more classical approach of separating application design from application usage.
Can't have 5% errors in exam result data. You wouldn't implement a spreadsheet without testing it.
CMS is different and complementary to Wikis.. Now you can do it both ways.. Implement some sort of validation in a Wiki.. Implement soem sort of Wiki in a CMS.. You can also keep the tools separate.. and integrate them using a portal (XWiki can be integrated in eXo and soon JBoss Portal).
The portal route was my conclusion but I'm working with the Cocoon portlet server.
Yes.. I've been relunctant to build a roadmap because there wasn't the actual critical mass to implement it.. I tend to view a roadmap something on whcih we would commit.. Now we could do some sort of tentative roadmap without dates showing our priorities..
That would be great, I'm sure everyone would really appreciate your architectural vision without obligation :-). Thanks for the, as always enlightening comments. Jim