Maybe we could model the process of "releasing" Creole 1.0 after the release process used in many open source distributions? That is, the schedule is planned (more or less), there is "feature freeze" after which no new features are being proposed, "version freeze" after which the proposed changes get either accepted or rejected. I don't like the fact that features only very recently introduced into Creole, without practically any implementation or testing, are suddenly going into the release candidate, just because the release date got set just after introducing them.

I agree with Yves that [[MultilineListItems]] and [[CodeHighlightingProposal]] deserve much more attention than the dreaded lists and escape characters. The latter only requires a small addition to core Creole (ignoring hashbangs after ~{{{), the former adds completeness.

By the way, [[The Student Experiment]] is largely a failure -- since the classes were "Introduction to Programming", most of the wiki content is pasted perl code -- the students didn't bother to comment their solutions or document anything on the wiki. I will be making the content available anyways.

-- [[Radomir Dopieralski]], 2007-Apr-24

[[Yves Piguet]] addressed the following questions on 2007-Apr-24:

**Since there hasn't been a consensus on hyphens, shouldn't stars (the last choice in a stable version) be maintained?**

There was indeed a consensus on hyphens at the WikiSym workshop in Denmark with which we decided to overrule by putting asterisks instead into the spec for bullet lists. Changing the spec to hyphens was a correction of our misjudgement.

**Why discarding current proposals which aren't rejected? E.g. [[MultilineListItems]], [[CodeHighlightingProposal]] (I'd propose something more general for meta information)?**

Most wikis can't handle multiline list items, so this would require a massive rewriting of wiki engines and is thus outside the scope of Creole. The code highlighting proposal describes a very specific display of meta data and is thus also outside the scope of Creole.

**Interwiki: I believed that link format was outside the scope of Creole.**

We have always had a link format in Creole, so I don't see how it is outside the scope of it.

-- [[Chuck Smith]], 25-Apr-2007

# Then I don't see why we've spent so much time to discuss it if WikiSym has such a larger weight.
# Is it a definitive decision, or is it open to discussion? Declaring that for some cases, Creole should be compatible with some wiki engines to avoid "massive rewriting", but not caring in other cases (e.g. preformatted blocks which are incompatible with Mediawiki, a wise decision imo), is totally arbitrary. Accepting line breaks in paragraphs and not in list items just doesn't make any sense, and there shouldn't be a big difference in the implementation.
# I meant the link target syntax itself, not the markup around it.

-- [[YvesPiguet]], 2007-Apr-25

Regarding 1: The [[Creole 0.6 Poll]] here backed up the decision at the WMS workshop regarding hyphens. On the other hand, we have discarded the WMS workshop decision on line breaks here by introducing line break characters. The fight about the linebreaks was hard as well.

-- [[ChristophSauer]], 2007-04-25

I was not present at the workshop on WikiSym, but heard summaries from several persons, and as far as I know the was also a consensus to only allow one level of nesting of these hyphen lists. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, are there **any** materials from the actual workshop available, or do we have to try blindly and wait for those who were present to comment on things? It's kind of strange having to follow rules that are secret and only revealed when actually useful...

-- [[Radomir Dopieralski]], 200-Apr-25

The 0.1 spec and this wiki, which was set up and used at the WMS Workshop was it's outcome. We agreed at the workshop to further work on this spec in this wiki. We did our best to make all the decisions there transparent to you, but our resources are limited.

//and only revealed when actually useful//

This is not true.

-- [[ChristophSauer]], 2007-04-25

I'm sorry for the offending wording. I meant that we get to know them only after the issue actually gets mentioned -- provided someone remembers it. 

I just re-read the [[Creole 0.1]] spec and the discussion on [[Talk.Creole0.1]] and I see that the issue is actually not new at all -- I have totally forgotten that discussion, even when I actually took part in it.

I am also tired of the argument. It's just I really believe that this kind of haphazard decision, based on a single, several hour discussion, silently discarding what we worked on for the last half a year and made final without any testing, is not good for the future of Creole.

-- [[Radomir Dopieralski]], 200-Apr-25

* Christoph, please note that in [[Creole0.6PollArchive]], everyone opposed strongly to the current [[EscapeCharacterProposal]] with its list of escaped markup. That's the only feedback we have, since the new poll neglected this point (actually by reading previous comments, we can find other oppositions). Creole 1.0 should take it into account.
* //- and only revealed when actually useful (RD) - this is not true (CS)// : I certainly didn't expect an obsolete decision to reappear now, with such "justification". It makes it difficult for newcomers like me to have confidence in the decision process.
* [[ReleasePolicy]] specifies a longer delay for 1.0.

-- [[YvesPiguet]], 2007-Apr-28

I am sad and slightly angry that it looks like the whole effort is now gone to waste. Creole has not reached a level that makes it usable as a stand-alone markup language. As Creole is now, it only increases the pains of content creators, by making markup even more complicated, because Creole in mixed mode will double the amount of alternative markup that needs to be learned by all authors. Wikis are about //reading// and writing, so it is not just a question of your own preferred markup, but of the superset of preferences in your collaboration. Also decisions like "leave it to the developer" make non-portable content.

Maybe something good from these discussions can be taken up elsewhere, I hope so!

-- [[Gregor Hagedorn]] 2007-04-28