At line 1 added 9 lines |
* IMHO, there should be a history of the rationale for each decision (pros and cons). This would avoid many repetitive discussions. |
* As wiki syntax is going to be for the technically inclinded in the long run (with WYSIWYG editors becoming more popular for wikis all the time), I wonder why linebreaks are now the default, as opposed to explicit line breaks like in HTML and LaTeX. For my next wiki, I want to mix LaTeX and Creole so (in my case) this convention is quite unfortunate. |
* One thing that I think transcends taste (like, admittedly, in the last item) is "//" for italics. Why make parsing even more complicated and have italics clash with URIs? Why not use double tilde "{{{ ~~ }}}" (squiggly lines are used for marking up italics in handwriting)? What about https: and mailto: URIs? At the very least, "://" should be exempt from being interpreted as italics (and not just "http://" and "ftp://". |
* Could you further explain what the place holder {{{ {[x]} }}} is about? |
|
Thanks for the good work, it is really good to have a standard such as Creole. |
|
-- [AxelRauschmayer], 2006-10-21 |
|
At line 17 added 82 lines |
|
!Creole 0.2 violates [Goals] |
|
In particular: |
|
# Using {{{ {{..}} }}} for pre is not collision free - {{{ {{..}} }}} is used by MediaWiki for templates. This is a huge collision - it would prevent Creole co-existing with MediaWiki, probably the most popular wiki of them all. (Being collsion free is the number one goal.) |
# Using {{{<<..>>}}} for images. This violates goal 4, Not New. According to [wikimatrix|http://www.wikimatrix.org/syntax.php?i=116] __no__ wiki uses {{{<<..>>}}} for images. |
# Using {{{<<..>>}}} for images is not collision free - it collides with TiddlyWiki's use of {{{<<..>>}}} for macros. |
|
-- [MartinBudden], 2006-10-08 |
|
I see that some changes have been reverted, and so the previous comments should be considered resolved. But I've noticed that the syntax for placeholders is still different form previous version: |
|
{{{ {[x]} }}} |
|
Is it intended, or simply forgotten? |
|
Apart from this, I would like to see quotations and simple tables included into Creole 0.2. From my point of view, they would make Creole much more useful. I see there's some discussion about tables, but nothing about quotations... This is quite surprising! |
|
I think the chosen goals are reasonable and important, and the proposed syntax is quite good for satisfying them. But probably now having some **use cases** would help a lot. |
|
-- MicheleTomaiuolo |
|
Changing the placeholder syntax back to Creole 0.1 was just forgotten. Sorry about that. |
|
--ChuckSmith |
|
I read: "Any markup within a link will not be parsed". |
|
Is it necessary to specify this? I would say this is in contrast with the ExtensibleByOmission goal. Moreover in [Images] there are examples of images inside links, which is a special case of markup inside links. Thanks. |
|
-- 2006-11-06, MicheleTomaiuolo |
|
Please give a bit more notice before declaring something final. On Nov 9 you stated that Creole 0.2 would be declared final on Nov 11. Two day's notice is hardly enough: it's only sufficient for people who read the site every day, and even for them it assumes they have time to comment on any given day. |
|
-- [MartinBudden], 2006-11-13 |
|
Well, it was just a minor change, but you are right. We should agree on a [ReleasePolicy], but right now i don't have a clue how it could look like. Maybe you could post links to other release policies so that we could learn from them. |
|
-- [ChristophSauer], 2006-11-14 |
|
Martin, when would you suggest be the final date before declaring Creole 0.2 final? It really is only a very minor change and has been on the site for a month now for comment. |
|
--[ChuckSmith], 2006-11-14 |
|
I'm not asking for you to not declare Creole 0.2 final (after all, you are still accepting comments on 0.3), merely that in future you give more notice. I suggest 2 week's notice for a 0.x release and (at least) a month's notice before you declare Creole 1.0 final. |
|
-- [MartinBudden], 2006-11-16 |
|
---- |
|
!Errata |
|
I found an error in the section "Bold, Italics, Links, Pre in Lists". The last list item in the Creole example contains preformatted markup which should render to {{{<tt>}}} in the recommended XHTML output but does not. |
|
-- [OliverHorn], 2006-11-23 |
|
Thanks! I just corrected it. |
|
-- [ChuckSmith], 2006-11-23 |
|
---- |
|
I was wondering if there could be wiki creole syntax for underlining and striking text ? These can be very convenient to emphasize something in a text. I often see stroke text as a way to express some sort of "slip of the tongue". So, here is my suggestion, which feels quite straightforward to me, at least : |
|
* underscore as {{{__my underscore text__}}} |
* strike as {{{--my stroke text--}}} |
|
If there is a discussion somewhere on this website about "why creole shouldn't have strike and underscore", sorry for the disturbance for I didn't find it. |
|
-- [ThomasGirod], 2006-11-28 |
|
Thanks for your suggestion. We are in the process of gathering information and forming kind of GoodPractices for creating a wiki markup -- please add anything you find useful to this link language. |
|
I'm not sure about everyday usefulness of a "subscript" markup, outside some very specific areas of science, which beg for their own markup extensions anyways. |
|
As for strikeout markup, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, I often use those "^H" myself, as a kind of rhetoric figure or pun (by the way, why not use it as the markup? ;) ), on the other hand, it's really very rare -- remember that every feature added to WikiCreole makes it a little harder both to implement and inculcate for wiki developers and admins, and to learn for wiki users. Does it really give you such a great boos in expressiveness to justify that? |
|
A separate issue is the choice of markup -- especially the possible conflicts with dashes and/or signature marks. But that's a minor problem, if we decide to include the "deleted" text, we can surely come up with markup for it. |
|
The main question is: "Do we need it?" |
-- [[RadomirDopieralski]], 2006-12-11 |