[Pmwiki-users] Re: Pmwiki new version

John Feezell JohnFeezell
Wed Jun 9 03:01:37 CDT 2004


On 09 Jun 2004 16:50:53 +1200, John Rankin <john.rankin at affinity.co.nz>  
wrote:

> On Wednesday, 9 June 2004 2:18 PM, Patrick R. Michaud  
> <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
>>>      One of the benefits of [[link syntax]] is that it's easy to
>>>      type -- repeating characters is a good thing (cf @@, '',
>> %%, ||)
>>
>> A very good point.  But I also think the that the markup for directives
>> should look distinctively like a "container", in the sense that [[...]],
>> ((...)), [:...:], have distinct start and end character sequences.  This
>> in contrast to things like @@, '', %%, $$ which use the same sequence
>> for start and end.  In particular, things like
>>
> ...
>>
>> So, if we go with characters that repeat as well as have distinctive
>> start and ends, we're basically left with
>>
>>   {{directive param}}  - reserved from 0.6 free links
> ...
>>   ((directive param))  - used by other links
>>
>> I ordered this in terms of "most troublesome to least troublesome",
>> but none of them strike me as being very good.  So then it's a question
>> of "containerized sequences" versus "doubled characters", and I think
>> I lean toward the former as being more important.  But that's just
>> my opinion at the moment--let's keep discussing it and see where it
>> leads.  :-)
>
> Well I'd like containerised *and* doubled. I think what's emerging is
> something like:
>
>    In an ideal world, we'd quite like to choose {{directive param}}
>    for a number of reasons, but we have been using it for free links.
>    We have switched from {{free links}} to [[free links]] so we can't
>    use [[directive param]] any more. But we'd kinda like to keep
>    {{free links}} around for a while.
>
> Pm states elsewhere:
>
> "For compatibility issues, I'd rather reserve the {{...}} to be a
> PmWiki-0.6 form of free-links, at least for the time being.  After
> a suitable transition period we might be able to redefine {{...}}
> for other purposes, but I'd like to leave it alone for now."
>
> For me this is the weakest of the many otherwise excellent arguments
> put forward. In some ways, it's easy and simple to say to people:
>   - we used to do free links with {{...}}; now we use [[...]]
>   - we used to do directives with [[...]]; now we use {{...}}
>   - this brings PmWiki into line with other wikis' llink syntax
>
>>
>> Pm
>>
>> P.S.: Even though it's technically the same sequence, //...// *looks*
>> like a container of sorts and so it might be useful.  However, I still
>> don't like the looks of
>>
>>    //noheader////nofooter////notitle//
>>
>> and those trailing slashes make me think of \\ (line break).
>>
>>
> I think I prefer the look of:
>     ((noheader))((nofooter))((notitle))
>
> --
> JR
> --

As an alternative, how about

   [.noheader][.nofooter][.notitle]
   [.directive parm]

It's easy to type, not likely to occur in normal text, etc.
although it does not use a double symbol.


/JF






-- 



More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list