On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:14:06AM -0000, Phil Boswell wrote:
...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 :-)
Well, I would think that reading a lone ":" as equivalent to "<blockquote>" (or something else sensible), if that could be implemented sanely, would be preferable; but I'm not sure that people sprinkling big ugly "<blockquote>...</blockquote>" blocks in the middle of wikitext is all that good an idea.
But then, I guess I tend towards "wikimarkup purism", in that I like to think of wikitext as completely independent of HTML, and all "borrowings" from one to the other as somewhat unfortunate.
On 20/12/05, Yaroslav Fedevych jaroslaw@linux.org.ua wrote:
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.
There is actually, I believe, an HTML-tag whitelist in the code somewhere, which is probably reasonably stable and thus authoritative [though I can't find it at the sec].
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]