Re: CVS update: /cowiki/

I see your point, but no matter what we use for markup we will find some 
case where there is a conflict between the markup language and the text 
we want to represent.  The questions become "How big is the intersection 
between the two, how hard is it to invoke the markup, and how hard is it 
to escape when that is needed?"

Single slashes are pretty common in text, increasing the size of the 
intersection.  coWiki requires that markup surround sequences words, so 
that greatly reduces the likelihood of an intersect.  Using repetition 
to quote means that // -> /, so // as a comment in code may still need 
to be ammended depending on the parser's interpretation.

Using repeated characters would make it possible to "safely" do markup 
within words because the intersect between marked up text and normal 
text is quite small.  Quoted text would be needed infrequently, and the 
same example of an unpaired // would indicate to the parser that it 
wasn't intended as markup.


Daniel T. Gorski wrote:

>On 03 Apr 15:44, [email protected] wrote:
>
>  
>
>> TEST.COWIKI.IDIOM
>> Just a start. Comments, please?
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>* *H*yper/T/ext _T_ransfer *P*rotocol
>><pre>$_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] and '//includes//'</pre>
>>    
>>
>
><http://cowiki.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=issues&msgNo=898>
>
>... any other emphasis should IMO be as easy as possible. E.g. no //double
>slashes// or **double bold** markup for a italic/bold text. Somebody might
>use // maybe for having remarks in code, but for "normal" users is it more
>intuitive to have /italic/ as it is used in emails and UseNet for the last
>20 years.
>
>regards dtg
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>  
>