Hoi, It is "nice" to have things both ways. However you have to realise that one reason why the parser is ugly is because of all the provisions to make life easy for people who do not code properly their wikisyntax. When the code is generated, there is no excuse for these "abominations" and much saner text can be generated.
There is also the long standing wish by many to make the wikisyntax universal as in software independent. When the wikisyntax is hidden from view, this is possible. An other thing is, it will allow us to fix problems like the '' problem with the Neapolitan language. As it is, the wikisyntax is ugly, it does not work properly in all circumstances and consequently the arguments to do away with direct editing of the MediaWiki syntax are quite powerful.
Thanks, GerardM
On 8/14/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
And my counter-question is "What about a WYSIWYG editor that's good enough to make working directly in wikitext unnecessary for even the most hardcore power-users?"
*Why do you continue to presume that those hardcore power-users Won't Want To Use Wikitext.* I'm *not* one of them, and I damned sure want to.
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.
In other words, the "hardcore user" should have the option of editing directly, but he shouldn't have to, no matter how hardcore he is :)
Steve _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l