There is now a new resource type "Wiki Text" in the CVS version.
It still has some problems (those pesky regex's!), and I have a small-to-medium list of enhancements to add. However it would be good if those interested can take a look and give me some feedback for improvements. Also does the help make any sense?
Thanks!
Next time you're posting here, click on the help icon next to the "Formatting" menu, then scroll down to the bottom of the help page. There's a link there to more info.
or http://moodle.org/lang/en/help/wiki.html
or http://moodle.org/lang/en/help/wiki.html
So the wiki is available only in MSIE? I have a window open right now in MSIE v.6 and can see the wiki formatting panel in that window.
I am writing this in Netscape v7.02 and I selected the Wiki format before I began typing but I see nothing like I saw in MSIE.
I guess with the wiki, in NS, I have to enter the codes by hand?
I tried the wiki command to bold, using the asterisks but it's not working (in netscape). I see in the MSIE window that the wiki editor has a bold icon so when would the asterisks be used?
I did read in some other thread here about NS implementing some kind of editor in the future.
best.
The whole idea is that the original document is just plain old fashioned text. The special codes are indeed entered by hand, but this should be easy and reasonably intuitve to do.
For example a lot of people in emails use asterisks around a word to add emphasis. Wiki text merely extends this idea by turning it into "real" bold when it is displayed.
If you think that is usefull then it is a short step to adding other characters and conventions for many other formatting styles.
But yes, its all just plain text, and it can all be edited withing Moodle in any browser. That IMHO is the fun of it.
(And this post was done using the Wiki™ formatting "mode")
I think it still would be a good idea adding a short help for the Wiki format in the same page where Moodle and HTML formats have their own. I don't think there's a hierarchical difference between these last two and Wiki …
If this can't be done, at least a direct link like this would be nice and polite
I agree! Can you please file a bug on it? http://moodle.org/bugs
I also agree that if there IS a standard Wiki format that Moodle should conform to it ... does anyone have a link? ...
I also agree that if there IS a standard Wiki format that Moodle should conform to it ... does anyone have a link? ...
There is help on the pages where Wiki Text is available. Please excuse the mistakes. I am working on a better version and some fixes in the code as well.
The big thing to grasp is that this form of markup allows you to produce results that you would need to use HTML tags for in a simpler way.
It uses easy to remember character sequences to denote things like headers, blockquotes, lists, bold, emphasis … . all that kind of stuff.
Another important point is that this is all done without giving the user chance to type in invalid markup, which will be significant as Moodle moves forward towards XHTML pages.
I am currently implementing more features, like tables and nested lists as well as fixing some tricky problems with the current feature set.
There is no standard for this type of markup, so I have stolen ideas from wherever I found them. I am very interested in other user's opinions though.
There is no standard for this type of markup, so I >have stolen ideas from wherever I found them. I am >very interested in other user's opinions though.
I thought wiki.org was fixing standards, dont't they? Anyway, IMHO it would be a good practice if moodle's standard could adhere to phpwiki's, one of the most popular versions. Hasta luego! Good luck!
At the time, there where a number of equally popular Wiki systems with very different markup formats.
I think things have moved on a bit now. I would be more than happy to re-do the code to encompass a standard, although I would want there to be a general agreement about what the standard should be.
However, I am now potentially stuck with hundreds of pages of text in the existing format, so I guess there would have to be some sort of version "switch" or a transitional stage.
Is anybody actually using the Wiki format?
It was generated from pure self-interest and I often wonder if it has been found usefull by anybody else.
As another slight plug, we continue to find it very easy to get non technical content authors on board producing well formatted material in literaly minutes. Can't be bad!
I think things have moved on a bit now. I would be more than happy to re-do the code to encompass a standard, although I would want there to be a general agreement about what the standard should be.
However, I am now potentially stuck with hundreds of pages of text in the existing format, so I guess there would have to be some sort of version "switch" or a transitional stage.
Is anybody actually using the Wiki format?
It was generated from pure self-interest and I often wonder if it has been found usefull by anybody else.
As another slight plug, we continue to find it very easy to get non technical content authors on board producing well formatted material in literaly minutes. Can't be bad!