[Pmwiki-users] the descriptions of emphasis
Patrick R. Michaud
Thu Dec 2 10:19:04 CST 2004
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:47:11AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Are you proposing to make all of these work by default in pmwiki? And if
> so, would '++bigger++' DWIM?
Perhaps. Keep in mind that '+big+' already exists in PmWiki 2, it
produces <big>...</big> (as opposed to the [+++...+++] markup which
does a similar thing but using a <span> and a computed size). And yes,
the thought of deprecating [++bigger++] and [--smaller--] in favor of
'++bigger++' and '--smaller--' did cross my mind this morning.
(Note to John Rankin: If we adopt '+++big+++', then '+big+' would still
generate <big>...</big>, and the additional +'s would either
add more <big>s, add a style= parameter to the <big>, or switch
the whole thing to use a <span>.)
> Assuming so, there would seem to be some
> minor cognitive difficulty. Does '///foo///' make "foo" more italic
> (leaning ever farther towards the base line :)? Does '**foo**' make
> "foo" more bold (though, there is some merit to increasing font weight)?
> Or would those two simply be synonyms for '/foo/' and '*foo*'? Same
> for super- and sub-scripts.
No, I wouldn't expect those to happen.
> Also, '/*bold italic*/' seems to imply that compositions are allowed.
> I hope this isn't really true as I don't ever want to see '+_*''/big
> subscript bold emphasized italic/''*_+' in a wiki page even as a joke.
I dunno, I think some compositions might be useful in a humorous sort
of way. For example:
'^*!&/+ No, I'm not cursing at you--I'm just writing colorful prose! +/&!*^'
But your points are well taken, so we'd leave bold italic as
'/'* bold italic *'/'
Hopefully nobody will be tempted to write
'/'* bold italic '/'*
which looks correct in many browsers but produces invalid HTML
More information about the pmwiki-users