[Pmwiki-users] Why groups?

[Patrick R. Michaud]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:43:18AM +1200, John Rankin wrote:
> If PmWiki goes down the tree route, it oought to adopt the same markup
> convention used in other popular wikis.

Actually, I disagree on this particular point.  Other wikis have 
often chosen their syntax based on the notion of "being a wiki" 
(i.e., the idea that bare page names always refer to the root as opposed
to the same area of the hierarchy), whereas PmWiki aims more
towards group collaboration and web site maintenance where a different
syntax may be more appropriate.  So, lacking a clear standard used by
other wikis, I'd probably choose or create something that is most 
appropriate to PmWiki's audiences.  However...

> But I find groups much easier to learn, use and explain than trees.
> The discussions on the list have rather reinforced the idea that
> trees are conceputally simple, but hard to get one's head around in
> practice, especially for casual users.

Indeed.  All of the discussion has led me to the conclusion that the 
best approach for now is to retain the one-level group structure that
PmWiki has always used, and provide some options for simple
(possibly too simplistic) extensions of groups beyond just one level.  
I'll then leave full-fledged page/subpages to Cookbook modules, and
let the adoption/popularity of those modules help guide future 
work.

(Yes, this is exactly the approach recommended by JR in his message. :-)

Pm