On 10/06/05, Marco Krohn <marco.krohn(a)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)
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]