On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:18:33AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/23/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com>
wrote:
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it would
probably be good to keep
in mind, too, that wiring the wikitext syntax into an editor like this
puts binders on the extension of that syntax: it has to be done in two
places.
That may not be the best thing.
For pure extensions, it should be possible to have a simple fall-back:
any unrecognised code is simply displayed. If some time from now the
code ((foo)) has some new meaning, well, you'll still be able to edit
it as normal - it just won't be WYSIWYGged. Should the reverse happen
- [[Image:foo.jpg|notreallyanimage]] suddenly should be rendered as
text - well, true.
The latter is obvious, but the former may wll be more important, and
was my actual point. "Let's not break the WYSIWYM editor" can be a
more powerful force than you'd think. An explicit policy should
probably be discussed in advance.
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
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?