Any wiki markup appears to render in order from left to right, take effect at the opening code, and end at either closing code or paragraph, so closing code is effectively unnecessary if the end of a paragraph accomplishes the same result:
''italics test''<br>
... works as well as
''italics test<br>
... and so on. On the one hand, I'd like this NOT to generate an error. On the other hand ... well, if Word Perfect would just take over CFKeditor or FCKeditor or FCUKeditor or whatever it's dang name is, then we'd have a true reveal codes window "dashboard" below a true wysiwyg window "windshield" the way Word Perfect and the web were supposed to be ... hasn't this all been worked out already 20 years ago?!? Why are we reinventing word processors from scratch on every new toy / environment that gets invented? </rant>
On 11/28/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Any wiki markup appears to render in order from left to right, take effect at the opening code, and end at either closing code or paragraph, so closing code is effectively unnecessary if the end of a paragraph accomplishes the same result:
''italics test''<br>
... works as well as
''italics test<br>
Yes, except for the special rules for "apostrophe-italic" sequences.
This works: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test''<br>
This doesn't: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test<br>
*groan*
Incidentally, you talk about "any wiki markup". I don't think you can generalise that much: how much wikitext formatting is there really apart from bold and italics? <code> doesn't work as you describe, for instance.
Steve
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Yes, except for the special rules for "apostrophe-italic" sequences.
This works: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test''<br>
This doesn't: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test<br>
*groan*
Please let's declare that a bug.
Incidentally, you talk about "any wiki markup". I don't think you can generalise that much: how much wikitext formatting is there really apart from bold and italics? <code> doesn't work as you describe, for instance.
I thought code was an extension-like preprocessor tag.
On 28/11/2007, Mark Jaroski mark@geekhive.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Yes, except for the special rules for "apostrophe-italic" sequences.
This works: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test''<br>
This doesn't: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test<br>
*groan*
Please let's declare that a bug.
That could justifiably be called a feature. What's definitely a bug is the "4 apostrophes means 2 literal apostrophes and an italic toggle" thing - that's completely unjustifiable.
On 29/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, Mark Jaroski mark@geekhive.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Yes, except for the special rules for "apostrophe-italic" sequences.
This works: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test''<br>
This doesn't: L'''amour'' est un oiseau rebel. ''italics test<br>
*groan*
Please let's declare that a bug.
That could justifiably be called a feature. What's definitely a bug is the "4 apostrophes means 2 literal apostrophes and an italic toggle" thing - that's completely unjustifiable.
I think we need a clean separation between the grammar of apostrophes and their semantics. That way anything language-specific could be handled on a per-wiki basis at the semantic stage.
Most wikis are monolingual so would only need one piece of semantic code, but others are multilingual overall or in specific areas such as Wiktionary.
The language-specific semantics could be handled by extensions or by parameters but at least a parser hook to allow extensions is a must.
There should probably be basic semantics for clear cut cases such as balanced unambiguous italic and bold markers, with anything unbalanced or ambiguous being left to the language- or wiki-specific semantic stage.
This way we can have the common-sense ''italics'' and '''bold''' and treat everything else as a special case which may be determined by the wiki. This might in theory even make proper handling of double apostrophes in Neapolitan possible.
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 11/29/07, Andrew Dunbar hippytrail@gmail.com wrote:
There should probably be basic semantics for clear cut cases such as balanced unambiguous italic and bold markers, with anything unbalanced or ambiguous being left to the language- or wiki-specific semantic stage.
This way we can have the common-sense ''italics'' and '''bold''' and treat everything else as a special case which may be determined by the wiki. This might in theory even make proper handling of double apostrophes in Neapolitan possible.
Interesting thought.
<sp>''foo, foo''<sp>, <sp>''<sp> -> guaranteed italics <sp>'''foo, foo'''<sp>, <sp>'''<sp> -> guaranteed bold foo''foo -> language-dependent, possibly literal (for neapolitan) foo'''foo -> language-dependent, possibly apostrophe-italic (for French, Italian etc)
'''' -> always apostrophe-bold? ''''' -> guaranteed bold-italics '''''' -> ? as present, apostrophes bold-italics
Personally, I'm not too fond of the 4-apostrophe rule, as this is unintuitive: * ''''four''''
If a person meant that to mean anything, they probably want the "four" in bold, surrounded by unbolded apostrophes. But they actually get the second apostrophe in bold. So I would suggest:
<sp>''''foo -> apostrophe, bold. foo''''<sp> -> bold, apostrophe <sp>''''<sp> -> ? there's no good reason why it should be apostrophe, bold. rendering it as double apostrophe seems as reasonable to me as anything else.
Steve
On 11/29/07, Mark Jaroski mark@geekhive.net wrote:
I thought code was an extension-like preprocessor tag.
No. Replying more verbosely on wikitext-l.
(Sorry, Tim)
Steve
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org