Alex Brollo <alex.brollo(a)gmail.com> writes:
Just a brief comment: there's no need of seaching
for "a perfect wiki
syntax", since it exists: it's the present model of well formed markup, t.i.
And, from your answer, we can see that you mean “perfectly
understandable to parsers”, but sacrifices human usability. XML is
notoriously difficult to produce by hand.
Suppose there was some mythical “perfect” markup.
We wouldn't want to sacrifice the usability of simple Wiki markup — it
would need to be something that could be picked up quickly (wiki-ly) by
people. After all, if your perfect markup start barfing up XML parser
errors whenever someone created not-so-well-formed XML, well, that
wouldn't feel very “wiki”, would it?
From what I've seen of this iteration of this
conversation, it looks
like people are most concerned with markup that is easy and
While I understand the importance of unambiguous markup or syntax for
machines, I think human-centered attributes such as “learn-ability” are
Perhaps this is where we can cooperate more with other Wiki writers to
develop a common Wiki markup. From my brief perusal of efforts, it
looks like there is a community of developers involved in
<http://www.wikicreole.org/> but MediaWiki involvement is lacking
— for a email from 2007(!!) quoting Tim Starling).
(Note that I think any conversation about parser changes should consider
the GoodPractices page from http://www.wikicreole.org/wiki/GoodPractices
If nothing else, perhaps there would be some use for the EBNF grammar
that was developed for WikiCreole.
War begins by calling for the annihilation of the Other,
but ends ultimately in self-annihilation.