On 11/12/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
The common solution to Tradenames with silly spelling or rendering is
to do your best once, and then ignore them for the rest of the article,
IME.
Yes, well I cheated anyway. It's usually spelt JetStar. The
programming language Brainf*ck suddenly comes to mind though...
And 2**5 (exponentiation() is a potential problem as
well, yes.
Sure. But that kind of sequence is really only likely to occur when
quoting programming source,
which pretty much has to be nowiki'ed by definition.
Any in-band approach will have this problem; the trick is to choose a
token that reduces it to an acceptable level -- where
by "acceptable" I
mean "causes fewer problems in the Real World than What We Have Now".
Yeah. I think ** and // will do a lot better than ''' and ''.
**Melbourne** is a great city.
**This is a list.
Well, an unadorned second level list item renders poorly just now
anyway, right?
Yes, but I don't like the way you're thinking. If you're thinking that
the parser should render this:
**This** is bold
whereas
*Foo
**This** is the word This followed by two asterisks...
Well...let's not do that. This might be an acceptable disambiguation rule:
**This** is always bold because there is no space.
** This** is a second-level list because there is a space.
Then again, why not just make the rule that it's *always* bold:
**This** is bold.
**This<nowiki>**</nowiki> is a second-level list.
That's what people will do anyway when they see the problem. It definitely
could arise, if the ** is some sort of footnotey thing, but it's going to be
pretty rare.
That's not "spelling". That's "rendering", and a policy
decision has
to be taken as to how much of that is required to be
representable.
Yeah, but let's not even think about Wikipedia policy yet. Keep it
technical...
Steve