[e-lang] Convert Walnut to MediaWiki

[James Graves]

Mark S. Miller wrote:
> James Graves wrote:
> > OK, unless someone has a strong objection, the "chapter split" and 
> > "no-split" versions of Walnut are going to go away.  I won't delete 
> > them, but just place redirects, to preserve any editing history that 
> > might be useful.
> > 
> > So only the subsection split version will remain.  This is the most 
> > wiki-friendly version anyway.  Easier to view, easier to edit.
> 
> Yes. I hadn't realized this was done by manual duplication. Even if
> that's currently the only way to gather Walnut back together into a single
> page, duplication isn't worth the maintenance nightmare it creates.

Hah!  As it turns out, Martin has already fixed all of this.

There is a way to include wiki pages within others.  And that's exactly
what he's done.

So there is no duplication.  All the different versions are actually
pulling from the same set of "section-split" wiki pages.

If you look closely at the section edit links, you'll see that they go
back to the "section-split" versions too.  So everything is pointing
back to the same source, and you can edit them either way.  Neat.

Thanks Martin!


> > We'll still have to manually add "next" and "previous" links to make 
> > reading Walnut easy.  But that is only a little bit of work.
> > 
> > Let's assume that there is or will be a tool that takes as input a wiki 
> > page, and then assembles it and all is subpages into one document.  If 
> > the tool which can re-assemble Walnut from the subpages doesn't exist, 
> > it will be written.  Either by us, or someone else associated with the 
> > wikibooks project.  It should be a Simple Matter of Programming, anyway.
> 
> Yes. Let's accumulate the right structure -- a left to right tree of subpages 
> -- that can be linearized again once we have the right software.

It would still be nice to have this.  However, we don't really what that
inter-section navigation to appear on the "chapter-split" and "complete"
versions of Walnut.

There's probably a way to do this with templates or something.

James