On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 01:55:13PM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote: One of the reasons the mainline isn't interested in this is, I suspect, precisely that it's not well defined. The communities I hang out in (and I was on Usenet since 1984 or so, back when I could still read The Entire Feed) tended to stick to *bold* and _whatever_; I didn't see /these sort of italics/ much, partially because it conflicts with search string notation, I suspect. I don't think there's A Standard, myself. Since it's an extension, and the mainline is unlikely to load it, could you make it an install-time configurable option whether _this_ renders as italics or underscore? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274

Jay R. Ashworth wrote: Done deal. See the extension page for details on how to configure (you'll need to re-download the extension for the changes to take effect) -- Jim On 2/21/07, Ivan Krstić <krstic(a)solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

The extension's hooking point "ParserBeforeTidy" happens very late in the parsing of a page. So late, that at this point all interpretation of MW syntax has already occurred. For this reason, my extension has no knowledge of <nowiki> delimiters and will go right through them. Also, I do no processing for strings that contain tags. So this: Hi *some bold <span> text*, more text </span> Becomes this: Hi <b>some bold <span> text</b>, more text </span> And I have no idea what Tidy would do to that one (probably something very ugly). So this is by no means a real actual solution. The "correct solution" (if you are of the party that thinks there's a problem in the first place) would be much more complicated and would need to hook into the Parser much more deeply - so much so that it may not even be possible given current Parser hooking points. But it works in a pinch - and as long as everybody uses reasonable syntax, it should work just fine. -- Jim On 2/21/07, Jay R. Ashworth &lt;jra(a)baylink.com&gt; wrote:

Well yeah, if you wanna put it that way :) * *So this will work* just fine **While this will* still be a 2nd level bullet On 2/21/07, Jay R. Ashworth &lt;jra(a)baylink.com&gt; wrote:

It wouldn't notice. The extension is only concerned with pairs of delimiters which occur at word boundaries (one before and one after). So we have the following which all work: Simple _word_ highlighting *is fine* Usenet syntax within <span>*some tags*</span> works This sentence *has bold text _and embedded underlined_ text* And none of these would work: Trying to _<span>wrap</span>_ some tags. A sentence spanning *two lines where the second delimiter* occurs on the second line. A sentence _with only a leading delimiter ... or only_ a trailing delimiter Mismatched *delimiters_ have no effect either. Trying to make something *_both underline_* and bold at the same time (leaves asterisks, only makes text underlined) Or trying to _*have it the other way around*_ (only bold, leaves underscores) Hope this helps. -- Jim On 2/21/07, Jay R. Ashworth &lt;jra(a)baylink.com&gt; wrote:

Nope, not at all. I should probably add this to the documentation. I won't be much help implementing a solution though since wo bu hui shuo Zhong-wen. On 2/22/07, Andrew Dunbar &lt;hippytrail(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > On 2/22/07, Jim Wilson &lt;wilson.jim.r(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > It wouldn't notice. The extension is only concerned with pairs of > > delimiters which occur at word boundaries (one before and one after). > > > Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail) > > > > So we have the following which all work: > > > > Simple _word_ highlighting *is fine* > > > > Usenet syntax within <span>*some tags*</span> works > > > > This sentence *has bold text _and embedded underlined_ text* > > > > And none of these would work: > > > > Trying to _<span>wrap</span>_ some tags. > > > > A sentence spanning *two lines > > where the second delimiter* occurs on the second line. > > > > A sentence _with only a leading delimiter > > ... or only_ a trailing delimiter > > > > Mismatched *delimiters_ have no effect either. > > > > Trying to make something *_both underline_* and bold at the same > time > > (leaves asterisks, only makes text underlined) > > > > Or trying to _*have it the other way around*_ (only bold, leaves > > underscores) > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > -- Jim > > > > On 2/21/07, Jay R. Ashworth &lt;jra(a)baylink.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:04:29PM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote: > > > > > So, in short, you dealt with it by running late enough that MW got > > > > > precedence, and grabbed all the asterisks it thought it was > interested > > > > > in. > > > > > > > > > > That works for me. > > > > > > > > Well yeah, if you wanna put it that way :) > > > > > > > > * *So this will work* just fine > > > > **While this will* still be a 2nd level bullet > > > > > > Which, as far as I'm concerned, is the proper thing. > > > > > > How does it handle this* situation? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -- jra > > > * IE: the use of an asterisk as an actual footnote marker > > > -- > > > Jay R. Ashworth > > > jra(a)baylink.com > > > Designer Baylink > RFC > > > 2100 > > > Ashworth & Associates The Things I > Think '87 > > > e24 > > > St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 > 647 > > > 1274 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > > -- > http://linguaphile.sf.net > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >

On 2/22/07, Jim Wilson &lt;wilson.jim.r(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That would be the simplest typesetting convention. But if it's semantics, not appearance, that you're after, then I believe the convention is _italics_ and *bold*. Two questions: * Why *single* punctuation rather than **double**? * Since when does anyone use or want underline on MediaWiki? :) Didn't underline become evil when it became the web standard for hyperlinks? Steve

On 2/23/07, Jim Wilson &lt;wilson.jim.r(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Heh, I'd assumed you would add // and __, too. But then, I was coming at this from a kind of pure wiki syntax point of view, where as much syntax as possible is just doubled punctuation: ** // __ {{ [[ == . Though I now see that __ would conflict with some magic words like __NOTOC__. But as long as we're not actually trying to achieve WikiBabel (or whatever it's called), there's no compelling reason to do so. Steve

On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:24:09PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: Because the goal is to leverage what people *actually do*. I almost *never* see doubled punctuation. Pretty much. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274

On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:17:28AM -0600, Jim Wilson wrote: Thanks for the addendum; that was my next question. Of course, overlapping markup like that leaves you open to the possibility someone will expand the magic word list in a later release -- it's *still* not the best idea... I would say so, myself. Markdown. Heh. :-) Hee. I love good factoring. Good point. Except that you can then say "see how easy it is to..." Or point them to Asking Good Questions. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274