Re: [cowiki-dev] Extension to coWiki text formatting

Archie Campbell wrote:

> PAUL HANCHETT wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html#h-10.2 shows that a 
> fair amount is possible. We would need pipe-syntax in lists as well as 
> tables. e.g.
>
> # first
> ## new level
> ###formattinginformation| next generation
> ## again that level
>
> The '([*#]+)(.*)\| (.*)' syntax would allow specification of a new 
> <ol> in the output html.

Are you swearing at me?  ;-)  Many things are possible, and I want to 
think about them before I do it.  I wouldn't mind more sophistication 
here.  I think I can devise some very readable and intuitive ways of 
accommodating this.

>>>* Mention the alias for [[link]] style links as well as ((link)) style.  
>>>
>> Actually, I prefer [[]] style as that is consistent with other wikis. 
>
> I'm coding for [[link]] and ((link)) both allowed.

I'm inclined to be conciliatory on this point...

>> Kai and dtg seem to strongly prefer it.  I'd like to choose one or 
>> the other.
>
> Kai? dtg?

dtg=Daniel.  Kai is his cohort in crime.

>>>* 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.
>
> We'll have <tt>, == and <fixed>! And why not?

Biggest reason is it takes time and effort to code each thing, and more 
to test.  Even if their behavior is identical. 

>>>* 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 |
>
> Very nice, but how to encode rowspan / colspan? Is the underflow 
> always thusly intentional? So I think Paul is agreeing to both ^-table 
> and <table>-table.

Same as before:
|unspanned|spanned||

You don't span rows without dropping to HTML.  Remember the idea is for 
it to /look/ simple!

>>>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!
>
> Vive la difference!
>
ACK!

Paul

PS-- I've completely left out definition style lists, which we should 
probably do.  Also some wikis have a way of doing footnotes (again 
involving (())) that is nice to have.