Hmm, this can be a way to get around the problem... =) But this has inconvenients. Isn't there any wikisyntax to do this, to write really HTML comments ? For the syntax highlighting of the source code in FF, for example, it would be important. Or maybe we can request this feature ? 2008/11/13 Kalan <kalan.001(a)gmail.com>

Kalan schreef: I guess he meant syntax highlighting in Firefox's View Source screen, in which <source> tags are of course irrelevant. Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

No, I mean, when I do Ctrl+U in Firefox, to see the source code of a page, I want to see my "real HTML comments" like real HTML comments, green italic. =) I'll think about this. (I didn't found anything similar on Bugzilla.) Sylvain Brunerie

2008/11/13 Marco Schuster &lt;marco(a)harddisk.is-a-geek.org&gt; Thanks. =) Concerning the syntax, I was rather thinking about something more concise, similar to <!-- --> but different.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Roan Kattouw &lt;roan.kattouw(a)home.nl&gt; wrote: another idea for comments: <script>// Looks mom, no hands! </script> <script>/* This is not a TEST, i am inocent */ </script> now, for "example source code", theres the good old XMP <xmp> what you see is what you see, YO!. FR<BR>UK that is, brasil is better than anyone </xmp> -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:53:15 +0100, Platonides wrote: Well, <source lang=html4strict><!-- comment --></source> seems to work like I'd expect, so the normal extension handling should get it right. Strip <comment>, remove <!-- .. -->, unstrip <comment>

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:40:04 +0100, Roan Kattouw wrote: This doesn't seem scary, but I really should read the new preprocessor more thoroughly. Anyway, it seems like both <!--<nowiki>-->''text''<!--</nowiki>--> and <nowiki><!-- comment --></nowiki> work properly, so nesting and comments doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Platonides &lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Forgive me for asking the obvious, but why on Earth do we want to be able to insert HTML comments? Comments are used in markup/programming languages, and are for the benefit of those who edit the code subsequently. Of course, nobody edits the parsed HTML, at least not directly, so it doesn't make much sense to put comments in there. Step back from implementation, and first ask "What's the use case?" Without a use case, you can't hope to think of a sensible implementation, because so much of implementation depends on how the feature is to be used. -- Andrew Garrett

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Sylvain Brunerie &lt;sylvain.brunerie(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No, there absolutely is not. That would be unsafe: users could insert arbitrary HTML content in comments and have IE pick it up using IE conditionals. If there were an actual use-case that was of any value, we could strip IE conditional comments and let all others pass . . . which would be safe only assuming there are no other scary abuses of comments out there, and that we get the conditional comment stripping right. If there are no use-cases, it's not worth it.

Sylvain Brunerie wrote: The main reason why comments are completely removed, rather than replaced with a marker and later re-inserted, is that in various contexts, users expect comments to have no syntactical impact whatsoever, and a strip marker would interfere with this, without invasive changes to many points of the parser. For instance: {{ #if: <!-- param empty? --> {{{param|}} | yes | no }} The comment is removed, which means that the parameter interacts with the #if in an intuitive way. This behaviour provides a challenge for the pre-save transform (PST), where templates are required to be expanded, and comments are re-inserted unchanged. The current situation with the PST is that comments are completely removed in certain safe special cases, with bugs exposed in the remaining cases. There's no reason why an extension couldn't add an xmlish tag, like <htmlcomment>, which inserts an HTML comment and protects against IE conditional comments and similar constructs as appropriate. But unless someone can come up with an important application, I don't think it needs to be in the core. -- Tim Starling

Tei wrote: We have such a feature already, the syntax is <!-- -->, like in HTML. -- Tim Starling