On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:56 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Is the wiki syntax going anywhere? Did somebody start work to
> standardize it?
I'm still working on it in back-burner mode, but it's a complex
problem. I'll post something about the semantic model I've
worked up soon for comment.
I'm not sure, but I think I was the idiot who
suggested the [[Image:x]]
syntax. It wouldn't have been so bad if we'd used [[File:x]] for the
file description page, a change we might yet make but haven't got around
to yet.
Actually, you can blame that one on me. You may have indeed suggested
it, but I implemented it without knowing about such recommendations.
There were later suggestions to change it, but I didn't jump on board
with them right away, as I didn't then see it as a big problem. Now
that the syntax has grown beyond recognition, it's a bigger issue.
Making it more transclusion-looking instead of
link-looking might be
logical in a holistic way.
Agreed.
> Would [
http://url/ text] be replaced by
[[
http://url/ | text]]?
> Would that make "http:" and "isbn:" parallels to
"image:" and
> "category:"?
I'd like to eliminate single-bracket links entirely. There's no need
for a separate syntax, since the "http:" (or "ftp:", etc.) uniquely
identifies a link as being external.
> What about making a scripting language for
template definitions,
> so you can have conditions, loops and database fetches, almost
> like PHP? {{x|y=x}} ::= if ($y) then "see also: $y";
Ug.
I'm really leery of complex templating --
especially anything allowing
loops, that's a merry jaunt on the road to Denial of Service land.
Yep. And I'm wary of arbitrary transclusions. Mybe limiting them to
template-space only would be a good idea as well.
> And what about <math></math>?
I'd also like to eliminate all <tag>-type markup. With math, there's
the natural alternative of "$$ stuff $$", just like the original TeX.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com>
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/>