From: Ashar Voultoiz Friday, December 05, 2003 8:45 AM
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 06:15:22 +0100 (CET), Lars Aronsson wrote:
Many articles contain complicated and advanced usages of HTML, and
that
seem to work out fine.
I don't think anybody is happy with the need for HTML markup in wiki pages.
Hello,
I personally like being able to code html in wikipedia articles.
That's
the frist descriptive langage I learned. I don't see why we should
relearn a
new langage (wiki) when there is already one working well.
I mean <b> to bold a text is not THAT difficult to learn :)
The reason is that wiki markup is designed to be more comfortably human-readable than is HTML markup.
== Big heading == [[Link]] has ''many'' ways of going: # One, # Two, # Three.
How about that!
is much terser and easier to parse than
<h2>Big heading</h2> <a href="?Link">Link</a> has <i>many</i> ways of going: <ol> <li>One, <li>Two, <li>Three. </ol> <p> How about that! </p>
And we operate on the general assumption that the majority of people are familiar with neither.