I don't actually have an opinion on David's proposal yet.
I am however under the impression that it probably has gotten confused
with earlier proposals by some of us and that it hasn't really been
looked at by most of us.
Without having made up my mind, I think it does indeed deserve another
look:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
You underestimate the problems with readability
you get when your
proposal is set into motion. I do not think I will bother with
editing en:texts when I cannot easily read what it says. When people
are edititing a text, they have to read what it says. All this extra
balast will make it hard just to READ the article let alone edit it.
So maybe there are "plenty" people who get bothered when they read
something they are not familiar with but making it extra hard to
editors will also make for "plenty" people who resent this unreadable
garble.
How exactly does putting curly brackets around a word make it any less
readable than square brackets as for links, or quote marks as for bold
and italic?
I'm sorry, but calling
The primary {{colors}}, according to ''The Big Book of Color'', are
[[red]], [[yellow]], and [[blue]].
"unreadable garble", but saying
The primary colors, according to ''The Big Book of Color'', are
[[red]], [[yellow]], and [[blue]].
is not "unreadable garble" is disingenuous.
An other thing
you miss is that with other ways of writing you get slightly
different
meanings and your system CANNOT cater for that.
Neither does your system, which I presume is doing nothing. I'm not
claiming my proposal is a cure-all for problems regarding
understandability. It is, however, a way to increase understandability
and also increase consistency. Doing nothing, of course, does nothing
to increase understandability or consistency.
- David
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l