On Nov 9, 2016 20:26, "C. Scott Ananian" cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm going to take the bait and respond in part, to defend the teams and projects I work with:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
they are summarised by the four words *under-ambitious, under-resourced, under-managed and under-performing*. The
VE/Parsoid/Flow
complex suffers from scope mismatch. As a vehicle for delivering a
WYSIWYG
editor and discussion board it is over-complex,
I'll stop here. I think it is poorly understood in the community how complex wikitext markup has been allowed to grow over the decades it has been under development. There *is no specification for wikitext*. We
have
informal guides which omit most of the interesting corner cases, like,
say,
priority between conflicting markup. Take a look at http://spec.commonmark.org/ to see what a precise specification for a
*much
simpler* markup language would look like. As you read through the cases
in
that spec, consider that if you translated most of the examples into wikitext, *literally no one knows what the expected output would be*. The
To make the long story short I would really love and support any well specified markup. If it is only for a part of the content and there is a note on top which syntax the text follows I d love it too.
Rupert