Robert Bilhmeyer wrote:
"Proper" categories like [[Computer
science]]
are best represented by dividing the listing into subfields (as done
in the current page). Magnus's scheme could support this via more
complicated syntax (e.g. {{{CATEGORY P.M. of Great Britain;1985}}}, or
{{{CATEGORY Comuter science;Algorithms}}}), but that reeks a bit of
overengineering.
My experience from various wiki shorthand notations is that they
should be easy-to-write. The major difference between an old style
website and a wiki is that the wiki is written by all, and that this
broadening of the authorship must be met by a simplification in
format. For example, the choice between plural and singular in
article headings is guided by which is easier to use as a link from
another text, and that most often turns out to be a singular, thus
[[Car]] rather than [[Cars]].
The indicated sort of overengineering should be avoided, not because I
say so, but because it will not be used. You can try to introduce it,
and then collect statistics on its use, and draw conclusions from the
numbers. Keep it simple, make it successful. Even the use of special
{{}} braces seems overly complicated to me. This is not a programming
language designed for programmers, but a text format intended for
someone who is specializing in entomology or woodcarving.
For a real simple category system, see
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CategoryCategory
--
Lars Aronsson
<lars(a)aronsson.se>
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/