(anonymous guest) (logged out)

Copyright (C) by the contributors. Some rights reserved, license BY-SA.

Sponsored by the Wiki Symposium and the Nuveon GmbH.


To all:
1. Should a "group" be created for this topic?
2. Am I the only one willing to make a syntax proposal?
3. Given that this set of functions is prospective that is, it's not been implemented by any wiki engine to my knowledge, is it inappropriate for WikiCreole.org to broach this prospective topic?

I'm interested in the answers to #2 & #3 prior to moving forward. Thanks,
JohnMcClure 23 Sep 08

There are people who monitor the changes (at least one, myself!), but the interaction level has decreased since Creole 1.0 was released. Your questions will be answered in the next few days. Thanks for your interest in Creole and for your participation!

-- YvesPiguet, 2008-Sep-24

1. What do you mean by "group"? 2. No, there are lots of people with lots of ideas, although it's been quiet lately. The huge amount of possible ideas is (was) one problem of this project, actually. 3. It's not really possible to discuss usability- and user experience-related topics without at least minimal testing. Building and testing prototypes should be in my opinion an important part of the design process, especially with new things. -- RadomirDopieralski, 2008-Sep-26
1. I saw "begin a group" button somewhere on this site; I'm not sure what that is about.
2. My hope is to see palpable interest in crafting Creole 2.0 now that 1.0 is published. It's difficult to discern whether or not the group has implicitly concurred that its work goals have been substantially reached. There is precious little talk about 2.0 on this site. 18 months ago the question was broached but not answered:
The 1.0 specification explicitely says "frozen" and 
"no development for two years". And ultimately, there
couldn't be any - after full two years of no-moving. 
So if there's no chance for a 1.5 or ever seeing a 
Creole 2.0, won't Wiki markups drift apart again sooner
or later? I'm uncertain that Creole additions are going 
to cut it.
-- Mario, 2007-Jul-11 
3. Agreed that useability is a key issue, as is technical feasibility; the evaluation and design processes should address these. Your process has been based so far on comparing syntaxes across engines for common requirements and design so yes, a discussion of the process for crafting & validating prospective syntax would be in order.
-- JohnMcClure 2008 Sep 29

Add new attachment

Only authorized users are allowed to upload new attachments.

« This page (revision-4) was last changed on 29-Sep-2008 19:49 by JohnMcClure