Just wondering: when did LDC become in charge of determining what Wikipedia's syntax should be?
WRT to the double/single bracket issue: We're suffering from a legacy problem, since the double-bracket syntax was originally uncommon (as opposed to CamelCase), it was okay that it was more tedious than single-bracket.
The best thing from a usability standpoint to do would be to switch from double brackets to single brackets.
An advantage of using double breackets only is that we'll then be able to use single brackets as regular punctuation, which would be especially handy in math articles, among others.
The answer to your first question is easy--you know where the code is. Like everything else here in Wiki land, the "authority" falls on the ones willing to do the work.
On 8/10/02 4:20 PM, "lcrocker@nupedia.com" lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Just wondering: when did LDC become in charge of determining what Wikipedia's syntax should be?
WRT to the double/single bracket issue: We're suffering from a legacy problem, since the double-bracket syntax was originally uncommon (as opposed to CamelCase), it was okay that it was more tedious than single-bracket.
The best thing from a usability standpoint to do would be to switch from double brackets to single brackets.
An advantage of using double breackets only is that we'll then be able to use single brackets as regular punctuation, which would be especially handy in math articles, among others.
Since the number of times we make links in Wikipedia vastly outnumbers the times we use single brackets as regular punctuation, it would benefit the efficiency of the project to have single brackets denote links.
Or so the argument goes.
The counter-argument I think would have something to do with the alternative, that is, how would we denote unmagical brackets when necessary?
The answer to your first question is easy--you know where the code is. Like everything else here in Wiki land, the "authority" falls on the ones willing to do the work.
Again, Wiki land != Wikipedia backend code development. What I'm saying is that being in charge of the code vests huge power, which behooves at least a front of humility. Is that coherent?
The Cunctator wrote:
On 8/10/02 4:20 PM, "lcrocker@nupedia.com" lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
An advantage of using double breackets only is that we'll then be able to use single brackets as regular punctuation, which would be especially handy in math articles, among others.
Since the number of times we make links in Wikipedia vastly outnumbers the times we use single brackets as regular punctuation, it would benefit the efficiency of the project to have single brackets denote links.
Or so the argument goes.
Looking at [[Wikipedia:How does one edit a page]], I notice that most of our wiki markup breaks down into roughly two types:
One or more symbols at the beginning of a line; terminated by line end - " " space for preformatted text - *, #, : etc for lists
Two or more symbols, terminated by the same number of symbols: - ''italics'', '''bold''' - == Headings ==, === more headings ===, ==== etc ==== - [[Freelinks]]
So using double brackets is: * consistent with our other markup * not a significant effort (oh no, double keystrokes!) * much less likely to conflict with legitimate use of single characters (see below)
The counter-argument I think would have something to do with the alternative, that is, how would we denote unmagical brackets when necessary?
Currently the very unwieldy <nowiki>[a]</nowiki>.
The answer to your first question is easy--you know where the code is. Like everything else here in Wiki land, the "authority" falls on the ones willing to do the work.
Again, Wiki land != Wikipedia backend code development. What I'm saying is that being in charge of the code vests huge power, which behooves at least a front of humility. Is that coherent?
What do you want, the programmers should walk three steps behind everybody else and not speak unless spoken to? ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 8/10/02 6:06 PM, "Brion VIBBER" brion@pobox.com wrote:
Looking at [[Wikipedia:How does one edit a page]], I notice that most of our wiki markup breaks down into roughly two types:
One or more symbols at the beginning of a line; terminated by line end
- " " space for preformatted text
- *, #, : etc for lists
Two or more symbols, terminated by the same number of symbols:
- ''italics'', '''bold'''
- == Headings ==, === more headings ===, ==== etc ====
- [[Freelinks]]
Except that headings can also be denoted by single '='s (or at least they used to be), and we have single brackets in use for external links. BTW, I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here.
Again, Wiki land != Wikipedia backend code development. What I'm saying is that being in charge of the code vests huge power, which behooves at least a front of humility. Is that coherent?
What do you want, the programmers should walk three steps behind everybody else and not speak unless spoken to? ;)
Preferably hopping on one foot.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 01:20:33PM -0700, lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
An advantage of using double breackets only is that we'll then be able to use single brackets as regular punctuation, which would be especially handy in math articles, among others.
Btw, what is also used in math articles is curly brackets ('{') for sets such as {1, 2, 3} and { f(x) | x in S }. So if you are going to use them for mark-up (I seem to remember you wanted to use them for styles) I'd prefer them doubled ( {{...}} ) or tied in with some other symbol( [{..}] ),
-- Jan Hidders
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org