On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 20:12 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
Well, to be consistent with other stuff consider: {{i|may be {{b|nested}}, as long}}
Yeah, that's another possibility, but it's not really consistent with the extension syntaxes, which only uses "|" to separate arguments from each other, not from the keyword. But I could do that as well, I suppose.
However I'll chime in on not being too thrilled about using curly braces for this; co-opting our current syntax to do something totally different is troublesome in a way that replacing old things with different new things isn't.
That's true, and that's a better argument than mere custom or inertia. I really don't want to use curlies for inclusions, because it makes short equations a pain, but maybe we could use <<>> for inclusions and something entirely different for styles. I also /do/ want to make sure there's a clean conceptual separation between inclusion-like things and tag-like things.
There's another possibility I thought of that might be a reasonable compromise--allow both class and id tags for block-level things, but only numeric ids for running text. If an article wants to use a style class for many pieces of running text in an article, the author can pre-declare (as part of the article's style metadata) a symbol to use for marking those text spans (there's several left--@@, %%, etc.)