On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:27:21PM +0000, Timwi wrote:
Interesting that you should say that, with
"<" having similarly many if
not more meanings already.
It doesn't have to be "[", but personally I'm rather strongly opposed
to
mimicking HTML/XML when it's not actually HTML or XML.
`<' has only one use - starting/closing named tags. And adding more
tags is consistent with it. It's also trivial to parse.
Why are you opposed to using '<' this way ? I'm personally rather strongly
in favour, so I wonder what are your reasons. Is it because you think
people may confuse Wiki markup with XML (I don't think such confusion is
likely to happen), or because you don't like <foo></foo> tags in general
?