Jan Hidders raved (I assume he meant "ranted"):
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>For example, many many many people, not just
programmers, understand
>how to make html <b>bold</b> and <i>italics</i>. Those are
intuitive
>and harmless. The original Ward Cunningham wiki solution of ' and ''
>and ''' for different things, well, that was never very intuitive and
>newcomers didn't know about it.
Oh, come on! How long does it take for newcomers to
grasp what '' and
''' means? I agree that in itself there is nothing wrong with <b> and
<i>
although I personally think they are slightly less easier to read then the
WikiWiki notation and I think it is always better to simply have one notation
for every mark-up.
The question isn't how easy "'''" is to learn.
The question is how easy "<b>" is to learn.
The answer to that is, it's pretty darned easy;
therefore, since people will try it, it should be allowed.
If having two ways to write the same thing is bad,
then honestly "'''" should go before "<b>" does.
(Note the "if"; I think that "'''" is great -- easier to
type.
In fact, it should actually be rendered as <strong>,
which is even harder to type but is almost always more correct.)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>