[pmwiki-users] Planning for 2.2.0

[John Rankin]

On Monday, 25 September 2006 5:30 AM, Crisses <crisses at kinhost.org> wrote:
>
>
>On Sep 24, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Marc Cooper wrote:
>
>No, they are typographical tools; in the sense that they render content 
>to the author's demands. Wiki markup is not a text formatting tool; 
>although text formatting is a subset of what it does.
>
>
>I strongly disagree.  Pm Philosophy #1 declares PmWiki an
>authoring tool.   I've been using it as a writing tool for
>quite some time, well before 1.0, and always consider it an
>authoring and writing instrument, not a typographical tool.  It
>supports paragraphs and publishes them to the web.  Everything
>else is gravy.  Except keeping bad people from ruining my good
>work :)
>
><snip>

A few observations on this discussion.

1. pmwiki has always emphasised that the markup we use depends on
    the task we are carrying out -- no markup is intrinsically good
   or bad, it is either a good fit for its intended purpose or it's not

2. as examples, treating linebreaks as "markup" makes good
    sense (from an author's perspective) when writing poetry or
    program code; in applications involving running prose it may
    not be the right thing to do

3. the Creole specification says that (a) best practice for line
    continuation is a \ at the end of a line (b) the rule is optional
    in a mixed native/Creole mode

4. I think this leaves the door open for pmwiki to offer support
    for Creole markup *and* for individual implementations to
    choose how to interpret linebreaks, although this may give
    rise to interoperability issues

5. if the Creole spec included an explicit directive like pmwiki's
    (:(no)?linebreaks:) then the interoperability issue goes away
    -- but it's only version 0.1 so it's early days

Just my 10¢ worth.
-- 
JR
--
John Rankin