On Wednesday, 4th May, 2005, at 04:50, Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:56 -0700, Brion Vibber
wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Making it more transclusion-looking instead of link-looking might be
logical in a holistic way.
Agreed.
So s/[[Image:*]]/{{Image:$1}}/g ? Perhaps {{File:*}} or {{Media:*}} instead,
with [[File:*]] being a direct link? Transclusion of pages and of media
files would then be identical, which makes it easier to grok them...
[Snip]
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.
The thing is, non-template-space transclusions are being used a lot for
"good" reasons (quite apart from anything else, reducing the number of times
you conflict or over-write yourself when you edit several sections on the
same page in quick succession) on pages like VfD where lots of people
discuss pages, images, people, etc.
> 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.
Seems sensible. Though how are we going to do articles with phrases like
"eArN $$!$$$$%%!&^! sENd all money now!"? (Yes yes, I know, <nowiki>.)
;-)
More seriously, I imagine the string "$$" occurs in a (possibly trivially
small) number of places. Also, if we're going to have TeX inlines, can we
have TeX display formulae? That would be quite useful, actually, in quite a
few places.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james(a)jdforrester.org | jon(a)eh.org | csvla(a)dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com