On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:14:06AM -0000, Phil Boswell wrote:
"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske(a)web.de>
wrote in
message news:43A701CC.2020809@web.de...
Uwe Brauer wrote:
Hello
Some articles bear the label: this page needs to be wikified, also it
looks not much different to a standard wikipedia page.
My question is which html constructions are considered as evil?
All of them, according to wikimarkup purists.
...which is really annoying when the perfectly legal (and thoroughly
documented) <blockquote> makes much more sense than a simple ":"
indentation. Maybe we should make it a requirement that you read the Help
page on legitimate markup before you're allowed to summarily revert
formatting :-)
Maybe...I should put it into a template [runs and hides behing Magnus ;-]
When I consider what can be taken as legal wiki markup (when, say,
writing a "third-party" wikicruncher), I have a general rule of thumb
that everything per XHTML DTD inside <body>...</body> except <style>,
<script> and maybe <object> must be parsed properly and considered
legal; plus all those nice and not so nice quirks carefully piled onto
each other by wikimedians for years.
When I write my own wiki pages (not on wikipedia), I generate wiki markup
wherever possible, except that '' and ''' irritate me, as well as
having
no wiki way to do multi-paragraph list items.
--
* I think we all need to take our teachers with multiple grains of
salt. They have, after all, figured out their stuff at a much slower
pace than they try to teach us. Something is bound to get lost in
that process.