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@math.ucr.edu
Toby Bartels wrote:
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.)
Or <em> maybe? 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 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.
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in wiki markup, but I change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see them, and I don't think they should be encouraged.
tarquin
On 7/27/02 11:24 AM, "tarquin" tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in wiki markup, but I change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see them, and I don't think they should be encouraged.
That's what deprecating means.
I think it's good practice to discourage HTML, but not ban it. TMTOWTDI.
Why should I have to learn yet another -- extremely cryptic and counter-intuitive -- markup language, just so I can volunteer for the privilege of writing an encyclopedia?
In other words, why would you (y'all, I'm not addressing Cunc in specific) want to discourage me?
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of The Cunctator Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 08:34 To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Parsing
On 7/27/02 11:24 AM, "tarquin" tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in wiki markup, but I change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see them, and I don't
think
they should be encouraged.
That's what deprecating means.
I think it's good practice to discourage HTML, but not ban it. TMTOWTDI.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 7/27/02 11:51 AM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Why should I have to learn yet another -- extremely cryptic and counter-intuitive -- markup language, just so I can volunteer for the privilege of writing an encyclopedia?
In other words, why would you (y'all, I'm not addressing Cunc in specific) want to discourage me?
I don't think you should be discouraged. I just think that we should only encourage one way (for style, consistency, simplicity) but allow other ways. HTML should be treated with benign neglect.
In other words, you don't have to learn anything, but if you want to, you can.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
On 7/27/02 11:51 AM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Why should I have to learn yet another --
extremely cryptic and
counter-intuitive -- markup language, just so I
can volunteer for the
privilege of writing an encyclopedia?
In other words, why would you (y'all, I'm not
addressing Cunc in
specific) want to discourage me?
I don't think you should be discouraged. I just think that we should only encourage one way (for style, consistency, simplicity) but allow other ways. HTML should be treated with benign neglect.
"Benign neglect". I love that phrase...
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:51:06AM -0700, Sean Barrett wrote:
Why should I have to learn yet another -- extremely cryptic and counter-intuitive -- markup language, just so I can volunteer for the privilege of writing an encyclopedia?
In the three years or so that I've now been roaming around WikiWiki sites, this is the first time that I've heard somebody complain about the complexity of the mark-up language. The WikiWiki concept has been around for more than 5 years and that experience suggests that the complexity of the mark-up is rarely a problem and usually the opposite. If you want to write you can do so already with a very minimum set of mark-up which is probably already used on the page you are editing anyway. There is always going to be some "weird mark-up" because linking is done differently from HTML.
-- Jan Hidders
The Cunctator wrote:
On 7/27/02 11:24 AM, "tarquin" tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in wiki markup, but I change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see them, and I don't think they should be encouraged.
That's what deprecating means.
I think it's good practice to discourage HTML, but not ban it. TMTOWTDI.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Ah. I stand corrected. From my experiences with HTML I had assume that in hacker lingo "deprecated" was used to mean the opposite of "beta" ("doesn't work yet" ;) ie "doesn't work any more".
In response to Sean Barrett: I find that Wiki markup has so few rules they've stuck pretty quickly. However, if '' and ''' are cryptic to you, don't use them. Stick to plain text, and the only thing you need to remember is "\n\n" makes a paragraph break. A well-written article has formatting as a mere embellishment: it is clear without it.
'' and ''' are not the worst offenders. There's also various numbers of equal-signs and dashes, colons and so on. All of which accomplishes nothing that the equivalent and more widely used HTML (and thus more widely known) doesn't also.
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of tarquin Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 13:35 To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Parsing
<discussion of "deprecated" snipped>
In response to Sean Barrett: I find that Wiki markup has so few rules they've stuck pretty quickly. However, if '' and ''' are cryptic to you, don't use them. Stick to plain text, and the only thing you need to remember is "\n\n" makes a paragraph break. A well-written article has formatting as a mere embellishment: it is clear without it.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
'' and ''' are not the worst offenders. There's also various numbers of equal-signs and dashes, colons and so on. All of which accomplishes nothing that the equivalent and more widely used HTML (and thus more widely known) doesn't also.
I don't know all the wiki html equivelants... for that matter I only know very basic html. But what I DO know seems to often be simpler then the wikipedia alternatives.
My very basic diary-formatting html commands (because that was why I learnt to bold, italic etc) include
<B> <I> <BR> <HR>
But the only one of those I use in the pedia is <BR> because I don't know what if any way there is to force the text to skip down to the next line. Intuitively, just hitting Enter ought to do it, but it doesn't. I don't think I've seen the wiki equivelant command. But the others weren't hard to learn.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 09:53:34AM +1000, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
But the only one of those I use in the pedia is <BR> because I don't know what if any way there is to force the text to skip down to the next line.
There isn't, at the moment, except of course for <BR>.
Intuitively, just hitting Enter ought to do it, but it doesn't.
The problem with that is that if you want to type one single paragraph you cannot use an Enter to break it up into lines. On some browser that makes it a bit hard to read back what you just typed.
I don't think I've seen the wiki equivelant command.
Some have suggested that you don't really need it because we already have paragraphs, itemized lists et cetera. Would you strongly disagree with that?
-- Jan Hidders
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 04:24:17PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in wiki markup, but I change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see them, and I don't think they should be encouraged.
I would not hesitate here. If you have two notations for the same thing people who want to write have to know them both because they are going to encounter them and therefore have to know what they mean and if they are the same or not. Having one notation is simpler for everybody.
-- Jan Hidders
--- "Jan.Hidders" hidders@uia.ua.ac.be wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 04:24:17PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in
wiki markup, but I
change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see
them, and I don't think
they should be encouraged.
I would not hesitate here. If you have two notations for the same thing people who want to write have to know them both because they are going to encounter them and therefore have to know what they mean and if they are the same or not. Having one notation is simpler for everybody.
-- Jan Hidders
What if you want a bold italic font? I know of only three ways to do it on Wikipedia, and none are pure wiki syntax: <b>''Bold italic''</b>, <i>'''Bold italic'''</i>, or <b><i>Bold italic</i></b>.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
It occurs to me that there is going to be an awful lot of reworking if we ever do go to an XML format Wikipedia (and this definitely needs discussion at some point soon). I would have said that HTML is a more generally accepted standard and that Wiki formatting is a highly localised phenomenon. You can do a lot more with HTML format than you ever can with Wiki formatting.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Gilbert" canuck_in_korea2002@yahoo.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Parsing
--- "Jan.Hidders" hidders@uia.ua.ac.be wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 04:24:17PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
I would hesitate before deprecating <b> and <i> in
wiki markup, but I
change those to the equivalent ' whenever I see
them, and I don't think
they should be encouraged.
I would not hesitate here. If you have two notations for the same thing people who want to write have to know them both because they are going to encounter them and therefore have to know what they mean and if they are the same or not. Having one notation is simpler for everybody.
-- Jan Hidders
What if you want a bold italic font? I know of only three ways to do it on Wikipedia, and none are pure wiki syntax: <b>''Bold italic''</b>, <i>'''Bold italic'''</i>, or <b><i>Bold italic</i></b>.
Stephen G.
Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Steve Callaway wrote:
It occurs to me that there is going to be an awful lot of reworking if we ever do go to an XML format Wikipedia (and this definitely needs discussion at some point soon). I would have said that HTML is a more generally accepted standard and that Wiki formatting is a highly localised phenomenon. You can do a lot more with HTML format than you ever can with Wiki formatting.
Au contraire. The beauty of Wiki Markup is that is is independent of what is sent to the browser. When XML finally (!) hits the road, all it will take is a few tweaks to the script so '' is converted to a different tag instead of <I>, and we can go on writing wiki markup as before. If anything, XML is another reason for preferring wiki markup to HTML. Another good reason, from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks, is:
It's an intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki page.
It's not rocket science, but it doesn't appeal to the VideoAddicts http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?VideoAddicts. If it doesn't appeal, they don't participate, which leaves those of us who read and write to get on with rational discourse.
Tarquin,
I (and probably most people I know (yeah, I live a sad life among the SGML, XML and HTML communities)) would disagree strongly with Wiki markup on a number of grounds. Firstly it's quirky and non-standard. The whole point of the standard mark-up languages is that they're not difficult to learn and carry both visual and informational order. H1, H2, H3 cannot be replicated by wiki markup in any sense. We are also really going to need these once we get to really large articles which require structure to the substance.
If you're worried about simplicity why not get a markup editor built into the Wikipedia interface. Are there any wiki markup editors out there? None that I've seen. Plenty of HTML markup editors though + source freely available. No need to reinvent the wheel for HTML.
There is also no way (AFAIK) of escaping Wiki Markup other than by using HTML <nowiki> xxx </nowiki> Ironic, huh?
The Wiki markup language varies from Wiki site to site. It is not uniform. It will become ever more disparate until it becomes a total nonsense. (Think I'm joking? have a crawl around some of the Wiki variants which are springing up on a daily basis.)
"Ooh, we need a markup to do x!" "Yes, we'll do that with fourteen asterisks and an exclamation mark..." er.....
I can see why you like it. I hope you can see why I find it both inelegant and limited.
rgds
Steve
----- Original Message ----- From: "tarquin" tarquin@planetunreal.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Parsing
Steve Callaway wrote:
It occurs to me that there is going to be an awful lot of reworking if we ever do go to an XML format Wikipedia (and this definitely needs
discussion
at some point soon). I would have said that HTML is a more generally accepted standard and that Wiki formatting is a highly localised
phenomenon.
You can do a lot more with HTML format than you ever can with Wiki formatting.
Au contraire. The beauty of Wiki Markup is that is is independent of what is sent to the browser. When XML finally (!) hits the road, all it will take is a few tweaks to the script so '' is converted to a different tag instead of <I>, and we can go on writing wiki markup as before. If anything, XML is another reason for preferring wiki markup to HTML. Another good reason, from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks, is:
It's an intelligence test of sorts to be able to edit a wiki page.
It's not rocket science, but it doesn't appeal to the VideoAddicts http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?VideoAddicts. If it doesn't appeal, they don't participate, which leaves those of us who read and write to get on with rational discourse.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 7/30/02 8:37 AM, "Steve Callaway" sjc@easynet.co.uk wrote:
Tarquin,
I (and probably most people I know (yeah, I live a sad life among the SGML, XML and HTML communities)) would disagree strongly with Wiki markup on a number of grounds. Firstly it's quirky and non-standard. The whole point of the standard mark-up languages is that they're not difficult to learn and carry both visual and informational order. H1, H2, H3 cannot be replicated by wiki markup in any sense. We are also really going to need these once we get to really large articles which require structure to the substance.
I don't understand. What about the = Header 1 =, == Header 2 ==, and === Header 3 === etc. markup?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:52:32AM -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
On 7/30/02 8:37 AM, "Steve Callaway" sjc@easynet.co.uk wrote:
Tarquin,
I (and probably most people I know (yeah, I live a sad life among the SGML, XML and HTML communities)) would disagree strongly with Wiki markup on a number of grounds. Firstly it's quirky and non-standard. The whole point of the standard mark-up languages is that they're not difficult to learn and carry both visual and informational order. H1, H2, H3 cannot be replicated by wiki markup in any sense. We are also really going to need these once we get to really large articles which require structure to the substance.
I don't understand. What about the = Header 1 =, == Header 2 ==, and === Header 3 === etc. markup?
Indeed. So these guys have learned SGML, HTML1, 2, 3 and 4, and probably type it by hand for a living, but learning the Wiki mark-up, wow, that is asking just too much. :-)
-- Jan Hidders
I don't understand. What about the = Header 1 =, == Header 2 ==, and === Header 3 === etc. markup
er. and H4 - H8? I can see why you want it. It's very idiosyncratic, nevertheless. HTML is //much// simpler. And the stuff you learn is //portable//. The way the wikis are going, you're going to need to know a raft of different flavours of markup.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan.Hidders" hidders@uia.ua.ac.be To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Parsing
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:52:32AM -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
On 7/30/02 8:37 AM, "Steve Callaway" sjc@easynet.co.uk wrote:
Tarquin,
I (and probably most people I know (yeah, I live a sad life among the
SGML,
XML and HTML communities)) would disagree strongly with Wiki markup on
a
number of grounds. Firstly it's quirky and non-standard. The whole
point of
the standard mark-up languages is that they're not difficult to learn
and
carry both visual and informational order. H1, H2, H3 cannot be
replicated
by wiki markup in any sense. We are also really going to need these
once we
get to really large articles which require structure to the substance.
I don't understand. What about the = Header 1 =, == Header 2 ==, and === Header 3 === etc. markup?
Indeed. So these guys have learned SGML, HTML1, 2, 3 and 4, and probably type it by hand for a living, but learning the Wiki mark-up, wow, that is asking just too much. :-)
-- Jan Hidders [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Steve Callaway wrote:
I don't understand. What about the = Header 1 =, == Header 2 ==, and === Header 3 === etc. markup
er. and H4 - H8? I can see why you want it. It's very idiosyncratic, nevertheless. HTML is //much// simpler. And the stuff you learn is //portable//. The way the wikis are going, you're going to need to know a raft of different flavours of markup.
I disagree that HTML is simpler at all. At my company, we've adopted wiki like syntax for letting people/customers edit simple articles at web applications, because it's easier for them to learn, and easier for them to type.
(We export to both HTML, XML and RTF, btw.)
Also, by using HTML, you create an expecation that a full set of HTML markup is supported. Which we can't have, of course, if we ever want to export to XML.
The concept of a limited markup is important for Wikipedia, exactly because the content counts, not the presentation. Wikipedia and other wikis represent the original dream of the web - marred by foul extensions to HTML and proprietary plugins. Wiki syntax must stay.
Using HTML for markup at Wikipedia is like pissing in your pants to keep warm.
-- Daniel
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
I disagree that HTML is simpler at all. At my company, we've adopted wiki like syntax for letting people/customers edit simple articles at web applications, because it's easier for them to learn, and easier for them to type.
(We export to both HTML, XML and RTF, btw.)
Also, by using HTML, you create an expecation that a full set of HTML markup is supported. Which we can't have, of course, if we ever want to export to XML.
The concept of a limited markup is important for Wikipedia, exactly because the content counts, not the presentation. Wikipedia and other wikis represent the original dream of the web - marred by foul extensions to HTML and proprietary plugins. Wiki syntax must stay.
Using HTML for markup at Wikipedia is like pissing in your pants to keep warm.
-- Daniel
I agree completely. The correct way to an XML hyper-wikipedia is through simple wiki markup.
Neil
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 05:38:54PM +0100, Steve Callaway wrote:
I don't understand. What about the = Header 1 =, == Header 2 ==, and === Header 3 === etc. markup
er. and H4 - H8?
Guess. It works up to ======. If you need more you are probably writing an article that should be split up anyway.
nevertheless. HTML is //much// simpler.
That is simply not true. One of the reasons that the WikiWiki mark-up was invented is exactly because HTML didn't work well and was seen as unecessarily difficult.
-- Jan Hidders
Steve Callaway wrote:
=== Header 3 === etc.
er. and H4 - H8? I can see why you want it. It's very idiosyncratic, nevertheless. HTML is //much// simpler. And the stuff you learn is
Frankly, when did you ever use H4 or even H8? Having more than 3 levels of headings must be considered poor information structure. It might happen in technical reports and documentation (although more by poor tradition than by good design), but hardly in wiki articles. The people who designed H4-H8 into HTML should be prosecuted, but they would probably be believed if they'd plead insanity.
Wiki markup is simplicity. XML is simplicity when compared to SGML, but it isn't radical enough for manual text editing. The exact details of wiki markup can be discussed, but essentially it is the same plain text that we use in email. At first I would have expected *boldface* and _italics_, which is the email/Usenet tradition, but '''boldface''' and ''italics'' is fine with me.
If the web browser HTML form textarea editor was a nice WYSIWYG editor, that would have been a step forward. But given the browsers as they are, wiki markup is the optimal solution, if you ask me.
Indeed. So these guys have learned SGML, HTML1, 2, 3 and 4, and probably type it by hand for a living, but learning the Wiki mark-up, wow, that is asking just too much. :-)
I do actually agree with a lot of what Steve says, but not entirely with the conclusions. There are so many flavours of wiki, and the fusspot within me itches to see it standardized. Yet it also allows each individual wiki to have its own feel -- more reasons below.... The quirkiness is also seen generally as a strength, not a hindrance. Simplicity is debateable. I find it easier to hit ' repeatedly (I'm a pianist...) that to fiddle with < and / -- one needs SHIFT and the other doesn't. For me, that's a guaranteed typo every time. At least with wiki I don't need to worry about what works on IE6 / Netscape 4.x / Opera / Mozilla ... and then MacIE, *nix browsers etc -- except of course on my own wiki where I decide what HTML tags the wiki tags are parsed to. I'm actually a lurker on the W3C CSS list, and it's very depressing to see all the great ideas for CSS3 that come up, yet all the while I can't even get CSS2 to work reliably. pot, kettle, black & so on ... ;-)
Anyway, before this wiki markup vs. HTML debate clogs the list, may I suggest that, as far as generalities of the topic go, we <gruff northern voice>take it outside</> to Meatball: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiSyntax , http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RawHtmlWiki and (you're so not gonna like this one...) http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?HtmlIsAssembler
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 12:23:39PM +0100, Steve Callaway wrote:
It occurs to me that there is going to be an awful lot of reworking if we ever do go to an XML format Wikipedia (and this definitely needs discussion at some point soon).
Well, I would prefer an XML-free format but either is going to be nog very difficult if we have a formal description of the grammar of the mark-up in a form that is understood by Yacc. (I'm working on that at the moment, we need such a grammar anyway.) Then we can do an automatic conversion of old mark-up to new mark-up and probably even detect the few cases where formatting is likely to be broken.
You can do a lot more with HTML format than you ever can with Wiki formatting.
That's actually a good reason *not* to use HTML. When you start doing "a lot more" it will also be "a lot more" difficult to understand and rewrite what you wrote. WIkipedia is not just about you writing but about you writing and others rewriting it. :-)
-- Jan Hidders
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
What if you want a bold italic font? I know of only three ways to do it on Wikipedia, and none are pure wiki syntax: <b>''Bold italic''</b>, <i>'''Bold italic'''</i>, or <b><i>Bold italic</i></b>.
Did you try '''''Bold italic''''' ?
--- Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
What if you want a bold italic font? I know of
only
three ways to do it on Wikipedia, and none are
pure
wiki syntax: <b>''Bold italic''</b>, <i>'''Bold italic'''</i>, or <b><i>Bold italic</i></b>.
Did you try '''''Bold italic''''' ?
No, I quite stupidly did not. Someone demonstrated on my page, though.
Am I the only one who found that counter-intuitive? If so, I withdraw any objections.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 07:43:22AM -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
Jan Hidders raved (I assume he meant "ranted"):
Er, yes, I did. That's one of my problems when I start ranting; I get inarticulate. :-)
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.
Just for clarity, I wasn't arguing that simple HTML like <b> is more difficult than ''', but just reacting to the suggestion of the reverse. It's when people start using <DIV> and complex <TABLE>s and <VAR> and <STRONG> when things start becoming harder to understand and edit for the average user. Other than that there are also technical reasons such as the simplicity of the parser and the control that we would have over the HTML that we send to the browsers of the reader.
-- Jan Hidders
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org