Toby Bartels wrote:
Many people comne to wikipedia completely ignorant of HTML. Many people on the net don't even know what HMTL is -- really! Some of them are my friends! Many people *with websites* use Dreamweaver or some such and have no idea what <b> means.
I don't see the relevance of that.
not hugely relevant. I was refuting the statement earlier that "we all know <b>". There's also the opinion that ''' is easier to learn than B. It's less scary to the non-technically-minded. A LOT less scary. Most people on this list are hardened to HTML. I hand-code my HTML and CSS in Textpad :) -- but I also know how people who just use the web to surf regard this sort of thing. To the casual websurfer < and > are like car headlights to rabbits.
I think the most important point is that wiki must be easily readable in both raw & rendered formats. The eye skims over ''' very easily, whereas <b> and </b> arrest the flow.
This I think *is* relevant. Since I don't believe that we need only one method for every purpose, I would keep both <b> and ''' but still prefer ''' (barring making a distinction between them as suggested below).
TMTOWTDY I suppose...
I'm not about to get upset if you change by <b> to ''', however, and could be convinced to follow your lead exactly if you work at it; I'll only get upset if you mess with <var>, as explained in another post (not yet made, or look on Jan's page).
I change <b> around the article title in the first sentence. I haven't changed any <var> tags, though I have created formulae myself with '' around variables, because I'd seen it done like that. The $$ for <var> idea is interesting, but I don't think it will make formulae significantly easier on the eye in raw form.