On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I know I've done this once before, but this
one's worse:
Can you believe that in that chunk of text, there are actually three
separate pieces of text, with two references between them? It's
totally unmanageable - attempting to actually edit the text that's
buried in there as a cohesive whole is next to impossible. Solutions
desperately wanted.
Yeah, that's bad. The detailed part of the references really should be
under a 'Works cited' subsection of the ==References== section while
something like this <ref>bbc.co.uk "The Girl that named
Pluto"</ref>
should be inline. The whole point of wiki syntax is to make it
possible to easily read and edit source text (unlike HTML). But having
complete reference info directly inline defeats that.
Yes; that's the argument we were having last week.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.