delirium-
This seems like a pretty hackish solution long-term.
HTML is not hackish. It can be printed and viewed on all platforms using
free libraries, it can be easily indexed, and it can be converted to
literally everything else using existing code. Semantic wikimarkup can be
replaced with CSS classes for the appropriate tags. We are already
producing well-formed xhtml pages with virtually every aspect of layout
defined in CSS. This then puts us on the road to producing pure XML when
browsers support it. A CSS wizard like Gabriel might even be able to hack
something like alternative MathML/PNG display for formulas, rendered based
on the user's CSS file.
To use our own syntax, which is indeed hackish (a mix of UseMod and our
own extensions, with ugly constructs like "#REDIRECT", pseudo-HTML tags,
tags with undefined scope etc.), or to define a new "abstract syntax"
would be a waste of valuable developer resources. Any semantic information
that may still be missing from the output should instead be included in
it.
Wikitext is meant to be read by humans, not by computers. The only program
which should read it is our own parser. Keeping a separate parser code in
sync with ours (or, in fact, a completely new "abstract" syntax) would be
a maintenance nightmare. Our syntax may look simple, but it is amazingly
complex - features like transclusion, parametrized templates, image
scaling, wiki table conversion, and various extensions are not to be
scoffed at. And new ones are being added all the time. That is good! The
fact that we support stuff like hieroglyphs makes Wikipedia much more
interesting for academics.
Now, rewriting the parser in another language to create a fast cross-
platform library might make sense, but for completely different reasons.
The only reason I can see to include the wikitext on a CD-ROM would be for
offline editing, but for that you need a fresh copy of the source to avoid
edit conflicts, so you need to fetch it from the site anyway.
Erik