Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/11/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think tables are just as bad as infoboxes, okay
fine.. a concession:
they are indeed worse. The point I was trying to make was more along
the lines of "when someone wants to edit the intro and they get
something which is not the intro it leads to confusion".
Yes. Footnotes sometimes have this effect too, as do excessive use of
arcane page layout formatting.
I think the absolute worst part of this is references.
Firstly, if you spot a typo in a reference, the instinct is to click the
"edit" link for the References section. But then all you see is:
== References ==
<references/>
The other thing is that if you spot a typo in the middle of a paragraph
which has inline references in every sentence, it is *extremely* hard to
find that typo because all the inline references distract. You look
somewhere and you don't even know if you're looking at the paragraph or
the inside of a <ref> tag.
If the person designing the references syntax had thought about this a
bit more, these severe problems should have been apparent to them. A
much more sensible thing would be to use [1], [2] etc. in the text, and
define the references in the place where they are actually displayed --
the References section. (Duh.)
Timwi