"MinuteElectron" <minuteelectron(a)googlemail.com>
wrote in message news:473B6914.1050305@googlemail.com...
Steve Sanbeg wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:17:48 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>
>>> Parsing of the pathological cases doesn't seem specifiable, but a
>>> simplified version probably would be.
>>>
>>> What if we only allowed ''italic'',
'''bold''' and ''''bold
italic'''',
>>> and required a separator between
consecutive markup. I.e.
>>> ''a''<s/>'''b''' =>
<i>a</i><b>b</b>;
''a'''''b''' =>
<i>a'''</a>b<b>..?
>>>
>>> What if we didn't allow nesting, so ''italic and
'''bold''''' had to
be
>>> written as ''italic and
''<s/>''''bold''''?
>>>
>>> That would probably go along way toward making it specifiable, without
>>> affecting 99% of the current text.
>>>
>> I think it's been agreed that outright rejecting any wikitext is a bad
>> idea. Error messages or not, the parser has to at least try.
>>
>
> We don't need error messages; just a way to interpret the syntax without
> too much lookahead. The combination of ambiguous syntax and nesting is
> what makes this hard. It's already been decided that we can't change
the
ambiguous
syntax. But it seems like things that aren't much used, like
the nesting, may still be on the table.
Why would you remove the nesting, it is highly useful, saves a lot of
time, and forcing it to be done without nesting would confuse
non-technical users. What would be the purpose of removing a useful
feature? The discussions seams to be swaying more towards ease of
documentation\programming rather than usability which should be the
primary goal.
Agreed. Nesting is used a lot. E.g.
'''''Note:''' this has not yet been verified.''
Removing it is, imho, unthinkable.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)