[Wikipedia-l] Re: Parsing

[tarquin]

Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Many people comne to wikipedia completely ignorant of HTML. Many people
>>on the net don't even know what HMTL is -- really! Some of them are my
>>friends! Many people *with websites* use Dreamweaver or some such and
>>have no idea what <b> means.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't see the relevance of that.
>  
>
not hugely relevant. I was refuting the statement earlier that "we all 
know <b>". There's also the opinion that ''' is easier to learn than B. 
It's less scary to the non-technically-minded. A LOT less scary. Most 
people on this list are hardened to HTML. I hand-code my HTML and CSS in 
Textpad :) -- but I also know how people who just use the web to surf 
regard this sort of thing. To the casual websurfer < and > are like car 
headlights to rabbits.

>>I think the most important point is that wiki must be easily readable in
>>both raw & rendered formats. The eye skims over ''' very easily, whereas
>><b> and </b> arrest the flow.
>>    
>>
>
>This I think *is* relevant.
>Since I don't believe that we need only one method for every purpose,
>I would keep both <b> and ''' but still prefer '''
>(barring making a distinction between them as suggested below).
>
TMTOWTDY I suppose...

>I'm not about to get upset if you change by <b> to ''', however,
>and could be convinced to follow your lead exactly if you work at it;
>I'll only get upset if you mess with <var>, as explained in another post
>(not yet made, or look on Jan's page).
>
I change <b> around the article title in the first sentence.
I haven't changed any <var> tags, though I have created formulae myself 
with '' around variables, because I'd seen it done like that.
The $$ for <var> idea is interesting, but I don't think it will make 
formulae significantly easier on the eye in raw form.