Mon Apr 21 13:18:12 GMT 2008
I'd opt for the %%(charts)...%%
1) We wouldn't touch anything to the formatter/wakka.php file.
I think we should encourage syntaxes that keep Wikka as lightweight
but extensible as possible.
2) Any syntax that would need the word charts to be hardcoded in
wakka.php should be avoided. We will certainly develop new formatters
for all kinds of stuffs and microformats.
3) Due to backward compatibility, I think the %% syntax will be the
less consuming resource.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Dario Taraborelli <dartar at wikkawiki.org> wrote:
> My feeling is that, while preserving backward-compatibility, we should
> make a decision that is:
> - as simple as possible for existing Wikka users
> - as close as possible to code block markup of other popular engines
> (to facilitate user migration from other wiki dialects)
> And since you mention this, I'd like to bring up again the discussion
> about the markup for custom formatters: we need to find a markup that
> will allow contributors to easily extend the available range of
> formatters. Formatters will be referred to by name, we could then use
> the current code markup (%%), the proposed extensible formatter markup
> (::), or anything else to mark a block of text for formatting. In my
> google-chart proof of concept I actually hesitated between the
> ::(charts)...:: # might create annoying issues with "natural" use
> of :: in programming
> %%(charts)...%% # consistent with our current formatter scheme, but
> possible conflict with GeSHi language names
> <charts>...</charts> # doku approach, possible conflict with reserved
> XHTML tags
> <:charts:>...</:charts:> # no conflict but pretty ugly
> What do you think?
> On 21 Apr 2008, at 13:31, mahefa randimbisoa wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Nils Lindenberg <niehle at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> people often have reported that using %% inside code-blocks is not
> >> possible since end the highlighter (painfull for MySQL statements
> >> etc.). But is there any obstacle preventing us from allowing %%
> >> % ... %%
> >> % to be used as an additional code-block markup?
> > I don't think there is any obstacle, but will this
> > syntax %%% ... %%% really help?
> WikkaWiki Community mailing list
> community at wikkawiki.org
Work hard at whatever you do! (Ecc. 9. 10a, CEV)
More information about the community