Did you ever wonder when Dokeos really started to change code on the basis of the Claroline project? Well, Sourceforge's got an answer for you... The first commit ever made (by Olivier Brouckaert, like many of the first 2000 commits, I still don't understand how it is humanly possible) was made on the 23rd of January 2004. So basically, as far as we talk about the code itself, Dokeos is celebrating its 5 years and a month today! Yeah. http://dokeos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dokeos?view=rev&revision=1 The funny thing is that, following SourceForge, Claroline is only traceable up to June the 2nd, 2004 which, if we were to believe that bluntly, would post-date the first commit of Dokeos. Of course, we all know that Dokeos forked from Claroline in 2004 (don't we? :o)), and we also know that Claroline started in 2001, following this page So that would mean the Dokeos code is about 8 years old... If we are to believe Moodle's CVS, Moodle's code started in November, of 2001, as well. I honestly thought it was older, but I guess there's some non-CVS work pre-dating this.
Now that Dokeos is old enough it can start to support UTF-8 and a decent 1 db structure. I hope 2.0 will come out soon :)
Yup, I hope so as well. It's always been my intention to put these in, but sadly nobody wants to finance that (it's a huge project), so for the 1-DB structure, we decided to wait for 2.0, and we have started the implementation of UTF-8 in 1.8.5 already and it is pretty much working already (the only thing is you have to change the language packs). Upgrading from 1.8.x to 1.8.6 will not "update" the existing strings though, so it can support UTF-8 only from a new install. But it works. Quite well in fact (we have tried Japanese and Arabic: http://international.dokeos.com/index.php?language=arabic_unicode).
http://international.dokeos.com/courses/NIHONGO/ (you can see we're missing Japanese translators there :-))
Somebody has problems in 1DB, as I said in http://projects.dokeos.com/index.php?do=details&task_id=3706 ; the structure now seems to be a bit ineffective
> we decided to wait for 2.0
The 2.0 in http://www.dokeosplanet.org/dokeos one? or the original code has some years of life more?
Could you reformulate your question about Dokeos 2.0?