On 10/06/05, Marco Krohn marco.krohn@gmx.de wrote:
The idea about "links with a pipe character with no text" is good and saves quite a lot of typing.
Note that this is already in MediaWiki's syntax, as an odd piece of voodoo replaced at save-time. Presumably in the proposed syntax it would be valid in the saved source and thus more visible to new users. [The other big example we have of such voodoo is the "~~~~" signatures; but I guess they'll always be an invisible software feature]
- I don't like that your image syntax is like <<image foo.png>>
instead of <image:foo.png>, this is inconsistant with the rest of the syntax.
I don't think it is - if you look, the suggested syntax consists of "<<", the type of inclusion, a space, zero or more arguments, and ">>". In this case, the type of inclusion is "image" and the first argument is "name of the image". In current MediaWiki syntax, it's not clear whether "Image:" is part of the syntax (a "link type") or just part of the first argument to the generic internal link syntax (the namespace forming part of the target's title); in Lee's syntax, it's very clear which is which.
- I'd like «« an »» better than << and >>
« is hard to type as my (german) keyboard has no easy way of accessing these characters.
Strongly agree; I don't know how much research Lee's done into which characters are easily accessible on the most keyboard layouts (he comments somewhere that he didn't use { and } for precisely that reason), but I doubt « and » would fall into that category, as most languages have no use for such characters. (AFAIK - anyway, neither British nor US English have such characters at all, so that's an awful lot of users you'd be annoying)