[Brion Vibber wrote] :
> <b>First paragraph
>
> Second paragraph
Just thinking aloud, but could this be made equivalent to:
==============================
'''First paragraph
Second paragraph
==============================
... which currently produces HTML-compliant output?
[Adrian Buehlmann wrote] :
> We need them because the "|" of wiki
> table interferes with template "|" and ParserFunctions "|".
Yes, it is slightly unfortunate that "|" has been overloaded to mean
both a parameter and to perform table-related functions.
Of course with 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say it could be useful to
have two different constructs for these purposes. I suppose it's
theoretically possible to introduce a new construct of some type
(example: "%") to indicate parameters (since I suspect parameter
delimiters are probably used less than "|" in tables), and have an
overlap period when both the new and the old construct work to allow
transitioning, and to then turn off/deprecate "|" for parameters. Then
the old HTML "<table>" syntax could be dropped if there was general
support for it (bias disclaimer: I personally prefer the
wiki-table-syntax to the HTML-table-syntax), because "|" would no
longer interfere with templates or ParserFunctions.
In such a scenario, the question main though is whether $gain >=
$pain. The pros and cons are probably something like this:
$gain:
* For people who prefer wiki tables to HTML tables.
* Gain in standardization (only one table format to understand, rather
than two).
* Gain in simplifying the Parser slightly by eliminating HTML table
syntax and "|" ambiguity (maybe?)
* Gain for people who want to use table-related syntax as parameters
to templates or ParserFunctions.
$pain:
* Transition costs in moving pages using old parameter syntax to new
parameter syntax.
* Transition costs in moving some pages from old HTML table syntax to
wiki table syntax.
* The Parser implementation pain.
* Adjustment pain for people who prefer HTML table syntax.
All the best,
Nick.
