[pmwiki-users] Utility pages

[Benjamin Wilson]

Neil Herber wrote:
> However, it begs the question: If someone doesn't want to identify the 
> site as a PmWiki implementation, what do they do with the PmWiki group 
> (remove all links I suppose) or directories named wiki.d/ (use Mod 
> Rewrite ...) or pages such as SearchWiki or WikiSandbox?
> 
> Just curious - not raising it as an objection. Might make an interesting 
> cookbook recipe: "How to disguise PmWiki as a standard website".

I run a couple of sites that aren't true Wikis, they are CMS that uses
PmWiki. Why? Because, quite honestly, PmWiki has consistently met or
exceeded my expectations. I've said this before, but I've tested over
two dozen CMS and wiki tools before I happened upon PmWiki, and have not
looked back on any of them.

Those sites that are operated as CMS do not have the PmWiki pages
visible unless an editor/administrator is logged in. I use a few recipes
to make this happen, and I like that those recipes are improving as
well. So, I don't mind the PmWiki pages. In selecting PmWiki, I "bought
in" to that reference to 'wiki' in the name.

As I mention in another email, we already have a suitably generic name:
'Main.' Whenever I install a new PmWiki instance,  I immediately start
customizing from the "vanilla" package. If "$UtilityGroup" were
established, I don't mind the brief moment of pain required to change
that variable and do whatever file changes I need. Heck, I'll even write
a recipe that will help convert those site-utility pages to the
$UtilityGroup.

I would say that using "Main" as the default term for those pages is a
"not-broke" item. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Give us either a
core function allowing us to define $UtilityGroup as we please, or
create a recipe that will override default PmWiki behavior (I prefer the
former); but don't change the present layout of those pages.

There's another "reason" for that. For every site that upgrades to the
bleeding-edge of PmWiki (I'm typically right behind the bleeding edge
myself) how many sites rarely ever upgrade? We have a recent email from
a fellow who was pre-1.6 who only now came to upgrade. Are we going to
increase the burden of upgrading for those who haven't come back in a
great while? My point is, here we are in a situation where it does not
hurt to keep something backwards-compatible (regarding the Main name),
while enabling those of us who want high-customization.

My two cents
Ben