On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:14:53PM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
I do disagree with you there, thinking that ''' is more difficult, although *only* because more newbies will know <b> to begin with -- they are inherently of pretty much the same complexity (I see two minor arguments each for relative simplicity). This is minor, and the difference will probably only lessen with time.
I think the relevant arguments have already been mentioned: - both are equally easy to learn - many newcomers already know <b> - other newcomers are a bit intimidated by HTML tags - raw text with ''' is slightly easier to read than with <b>
I argue that the HTML tag itself is the best wiki markup for most of these. It's just a few situations where we have something better, or where the HTML is so complicated that we *need* something better. Then I'm with you; I just wish that this weren't an antiHTML crusade.
That crusade is just me. Please don't let my extreme point of view stop you from agreeing with more reasonable points of views. :-) Even I could probably be convinced to use HTML tags for certain mark-up if we cannot find good Wiki alternatives. However, if there is a good Wiki alternative then we should use that and that alone. But you probably agree with me there.
Well, Lee has just informed me that <strong> and <em> are taken care of; it was only Phase II that rendered ''' and '' suboptimally as <b> and <i>.
This means that the mark-up has even now again become more complex because a writer now has to decide between ''' and <b> and know the difference. If there had been only one notation we wouldn't even have had this discussion and/or the developers would have had to consult Wikipedia-l for adding new mark-up. We are failing in keeping the mark-up simple. That is bad.
-- Jan Hidders
PS. This discussion is probably coming out of everybodies noses by now, so I suggest we wrap it up, or continue it by e-mail.