On 11/06/05, Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> wrote:
I considered <<! This is a comment>> as
well, but why add the character
just to make it look more like HTML? The "noname" extension seemed like
a reasonably understandable thing to do.
I'm a bit sceptical about having a "null" extension, too - the main
problem being that it is an example of "significant whitespace",
something you rightly (imho) rejected for pre-formatted text. "<<
image foo >>" looks too much like "<<image foo>> for my
liking, so
having one be an image and the other a comment seems unwise. (I'm not
necessarily suggesting that "<< image foo >>" should include an
image,
but having it visibly pass through as invalid would probably be
preferable to having it "vanish". Having *something* explicit for
saying "this is a comment" would therefore be a good idea.
Whether to use "<<comment foo>>" or
"<<!foo>>", or something else,
touches on a larger question I already made about whether to go with
words or symbols to denote what "class" of inclusion is taking place.
As in, would "<<include foo>>" be better off as
"<<+foo>>", etc. I
think such a carefully designed syntax should consider carefully which
approach to take (or exactly how to mix them), and to try and clarify
my thoughts, I've made a table with examples and comments, and placed
at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IMSoP/ext-markup [I wanted to
use wiki-markup :p]
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]