The Cunctator wrote:
On 8/10/02 4:20 PM, "lcrocker(a)nupedia.com"
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 ====
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
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