On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Greg L greg_l_at_wikipedia@comcast.net wrote:
This is the product of the buggy math-based parser functions it must use. To date, notwithstanding that Jimbo is solidly behind this, and that Erik supports the production of the required parser function, no volunteer developer has stepped up to the plate with a parser function that can character-counting parser function.
Jimmy has absolutely no authority or expertise on technical matters such as this. His opinion on the best way to implement such presentational templates is, with respect, not necessarily informed and not binding in any way, as he does not deal with site operations or software development at this time.
While Erik may have authority over technical matters (he is Brion's boss), I would imagine that, like in any organisation, he delegates final decisions on matters such as this to Brion, who is, after all, CTO.
The approach we want to take isn't exactly clear at this time -- this discussion is being had in multiple places, and it basically boils down to a wide expansion of parser functionality (i.e. inline LUA), or the greater use of in-built parser functions for the *end* *result*, rather than for the intermediate steps required. The current approach of providing "building block" functions has been known to be reasonably untenable for some time, for performance and usability reasons (see a few threads up, Domas' rant about Cite).