On 8/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:21:15AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
I think it's fair to assume that there will be people who will always prefer working directly "in the code" (whatever that means). It's probably also reasonable to say that a full WYSIWYG layer which makes wikitext redundant for the user is also a good thing.
You do; I gather Simetrical does not.
More precisely: I contemplated the possibility that the current markup is no longer necessary. I do not necessarily adhere to that view dogmatically or without reservation, although up to this point I may have allowed myself to be drawn into the argument beyond my level of conviction.
On 8/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
Size.
I believe the database is already compressed, so the difference would not be particularly large.
If there are two formats which are exactly round-trippable, and one of them is a) smaller, and b) supported by the current code... why would we change, again?
Because *maybe* the second format is more processor-efficient and easier to work with across different applications. This difference will become much less once we get the grammar formalized, but I don't know if most languages have something like yacc (Javascript is particularly important), and many third-party reusers undoubtedly don't have authority to install PHP extensions or run binaries (well, not sure about the latter).
This would require evaluation by people more familiar with the issue than I, to be sure. It was only a suggestion.
On 8/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
My Blackberry will not parse XML.
Which is why there would be a Javascript fallback, which could probably be grabbed from any number of open-source projects. Since the syntax is well-defined, popular, and much simpler than that of wikicode.