Here's the comment I posted on the article:

My main complaint with most markup-based wikis is the excruciating edit/save cycle. You go and tweak the markup syntax just the way you like, you hit save (or if you’re lucky, preview) to view the result. You find a typo or another change to make, which means you have to hit edit, scroll back down to where you were, and start the process all over again.

WYSIWYG editors, for all their faults, have the ability to do away with this cumbersome edit/save cycle completely. You just edit your page directly (ideally with some good key combinations in order to approach the speech with which you can enter formatted text with traditional markup).

So I actually tried to tackle the problem of making a decent, simple, fast WYSIWYG wiki editor. The result is called Luminotes, and you can check it out at http://luminotes.com/

Let me know what you think.

Dan I replied on my blog, pasting it here too:

@Dan I don’t know - honestly, editing and hitting save didn’t disturb me in the past - like you said there’s always the preview available (and the “only small change” checkbox).

And while I like the experience of editing in Luminotes, there are also some things missing that come with the standard edit-save cycle like comparing versions (diffs) of pages - but, well, perhaps I didn’t find it?

In my experience most people argue against wiki markup from the experience of a try at editing a Wikipedia article - and Mediawiki markup is seriously limited (to say it very friendly). This problem of “oh no, it’s code” needs to be tackled with easy and powerful WYSIWYG editors in time, Luminote sure is an interesting thing to watch.

@Corey I agree with you, how data is stored is important - exporting, migrating and importing (from Word docs, ftw) would profit from standard interfaces - XHTML is very OK with me