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.)
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com>
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>