| 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 13 changed one line |
| # 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 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.) |
| At line 27 added 72 lines |
|
| 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 |
.