Re: [cowiki-dev] Extension to coWiki text formatting
PAUL HANCHETT <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.php.cowiki.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thanks for your comments, Sy... Sy wrote: >* Numbered lists: One day I'd like to be able to customise the list >for, say, all numbers instead of having mixed numbering/lettering. > > I understand and I'd like that too, but I'm not sure how to implement it. There are a number of issues over formatting and controlling lists that we should think about. In this case the 1.a. style is a vestige of my using Word to create the HTML document. >* Mention the alias for [[link]] style links as well as ((link)) style. > > Actually, I prefer [[]] style as that is consistent with other wikis. I have found that Rubyists use (()) in there documentation tool, and Kai and dtg seem to strongly prefer it. I'd like to choose one or the other. When there are too many ways of accomplishing the same thing, a user will start to ask "What is the difference? When should I use one over the other?" DocuWiki uses (()) to indicate images to be included inline. There is also the issue of polluting the command space... Internally, the original token has to be retained so that the text can be presented back to the user as they entered it. >* Is it really diffitcult to allow nesting of quote <q> tags? > > It shouldn't be, but what you're really thinking about then is an <indent> operator, right? I would also like a <box> function where I could display text to be formatted in what looks like today's <code> box. It also seems to me that we have a lot (too many?) of ways of displaying preformatted text. >* <fixed>fixed</fixed> -- Should that be <tt>TrueType</tt> ? > > I think you are right. >* Tables: I really like the new style of table that was being coded. >I think I understand your proposal, but I need an example. > > I didn't understand it and I couldn't *read* it at all! :-) ^ Heading 1 ^ Heading 2 ^ <left>Heading 3</left> ^ | cell A1 | cell A2 | cell A3 | | <left>cell B1</left> | <left>cell B2</left>| <left>cell B3</left>| | cell C1 | cell C2 | cell C3 | Produces a table like this: Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 cell A1 cell A2 cell A3 cell B1 cell B2 cell B3 cell C1 cell C2 cell C3 >"Eventually, the ability to save text with a particular language >construct can be associated with membership in a security group. A >user not assigned to the language's security group will not be able to >modify a page containing that language, nor will they be able to save >a page that invokes the language." > >All I can say is that I would never use this functionality, as it >introduces a new layer of complexity.. I have to worry about >permissions and the language being used in a page. > > Sy, I understand that you wouldn't. This is a feature an individual user, or a group of trusted users, would never use. But it becomes important when you trust some people and not others, what ever the reason. ;-) >* Language processing instructions: Shorten to <html>, <php>, etc? or >if not, also allow "lang-html" etc.. > > NACK. In the internal XML it /could /be represented this way, but the <? ?> syntax is a community standard that will be recognized for what it is doing, and it draws a clear distinction between data and instruction. Novice users will not be exposed to it, so I don't think their reaction to it is significant. >Overall, I agree. In particular, I'm curious about the proposed >page-inclusion functionality, the table markup syntax and the >administrator-managed languages. > > So am I. :-) I wanted to get a concrete proposal out there to discuss, before we self-destructed over wiki-text issues! Paul