On 13/11/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Count me out when you say that "*we* define the correct rendering of wikitext to be whatever the parser says it is". For some languages it just does not work properly. Consequently, either you are right and it is not for me to suggest that the parser does not is 100% or there is indeed room for improvement. Thanks, GerardM
I never said it was a good definition, but it *is* the definition. That's why we're talking about changing that definition.
My point was that saying "The parser isn't broken" isn't a good argument because it is tautologous since the definition of a broken parser is one that doesn't render text according to the definition of how it should be rendered, and that definition in this case is simply how the parser renders it. So, it is true, but irrelevant, that the parser isn't broken, what's broken is the definition of wikitext.
(And yes, that paragraph is hard to understand - I struggle to describe circular logic without ending up with a circular description... Sorry.)