Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
O.k., well, I'm in over my head a bit. My feeling
is that we should
be generating a very low level of HTML, so that all browsers can be
sure to render it. So why do we want to force 4.0?
I agree. As long as there are no 4.0 features in the generated HTML,
there's no need to specify it.
OTOH, I know of no old browser which would reject displaying a page
just because it specifies a DTD that is new.
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
My guess is that no, we don't want people writing
HTML markup. We
want to support a few tags, as we do now, because they're so commonly
known and useful.
Above all, we don't want people to _have_ to do anything even the
_least bit_ hard.
Agreed again. I even thought about rewikifying commonly-known
elements like B back to '''. Otherwise the following situation is
possible:
Author 1 knows a bit HTML, but less Wiki. She writes "<b>term</b>".
Author 2 knows no HTML, but is fluent in Wiki. He is confused by
"<b>". Also note that while Wiki is fully documented on our site, HTML
is not.
For the time being rewikifying can be done by people, but the software
could do it as well.
The problem is not big, though, the only thing where Wikipedians
commonly use HTML is tables -- many think HTML tables are superior to
the Wiki tables. That complaint could be fixed of course in Magnus's
script.
--
Robbe