The Cunctator wrote:
On 8/10/02 4:20 PM, "lcrocker@nupedia.com" lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
An advantage of using double breackets only is that we'll then be able to use single brackets as regular punctuation, which would be especially handy in math articles, among others.
Since the number of times we make links in Wikipedia vastly outnumbers the times we use single brackets as regular punctuation, it would benefit the efficiency of the project to have single brackets denote links.
Or so the argument goes.
Looking at [[Wikipedia:How does one edit a page]], I notice that most of our wiki markup breaks down into roughly two types:
One or more symbols at the beginning of a line; terminated by line end - " " space for preformatted text - *, #, : etc for lists
Two or more symbols, terminated by the same number of symbols: - ''italics'', '''bold''' - == Headings ==, === more headings ===, ==== etc ==== - [[Freelinks]]
So using double brackets is: * consistent with our other markup * not a significant effort (oh no, double keystrokes!) * much less likely to conflict with legitimate use of single characters (see below)
The counter-argument I think would have something to do with the alternative, that is, how would we denote unmagical brackets when necessary?
Currently the very unwieldy <nowiki>[a]</nowiki>.
The answer to your first question is easy--you know where the code is. Like everything else here in Wiki land, the "authority" falls on the ones willing to do the work.
Again, Wiki land != Wikipedia backend code development. What I'm saying is that being in charge of the code vests huge power, which behooves at least a front of humility. Is that coherent?
What do you want, the programmers should walk three steps behind everybody else and not speak unless spoken to? ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)