[pmwiki] Re: [Pmwiki-users] Whitepaper about markup strategy

[Janice Heinold]

My $0.02 worth...

>> However, I'd like to note that most writers won't be putting code =
into=20
>> their documentation -- and those who are going to are probably able =
to=20
>> handle XML-style [[feature]]...[[/feature]] markup. =20

Clarification: when you say "most writers won't be putting code into =
their
documentation," what level of code are you talking about? Any type of =
code,
even bold or italic? Or mostly advanced markup?

The authors that use my wiki system are probably what you would consider
"computer illiterate." (When I tried to convince them to purchase web
hosting services, I had to answer "I'm in my beat-up old blue pickup =
truck
driving down the information superhighway. Now what's a web host?" :P ) =
I
generally have a hard time getting them to *try* wiki authoring. Once
they've gotten over the fact that "yes, I can edit a webpage," they
generally do well with the current basic wiki markup - mostly headings,
bold, italic, font size, simple tables - and don't need or want a lot =
more
(and don't even suggest wikistyles, freelinks or anything that appears =
like
computer code to them).=20

> I do not propose a complete reworking. I propose a strategic
complementation of the=20
> current schemes.

I am glad to hear the XML-style markup you're proposing is in addition =
to
the regular basic markup. If my users were forced to learn complex code, =
I'd
*still* be doing the website all by my lonesome.  :-(

>> I found most of your document interesting, there were a few errors,=20
>> spellings, and links I fixed...
> Thanks a lot. You see most of the errors come from the difficulties I =
have
with the markup.=20

For the record, I have had some requests for a spell check feature. Not
realistic, I know. It's a wiki, not a word processor. :)=20

> Even if I feel that for thos who won't put code into the =
documentation,=20
> the existing Wiki Markup (which I called Fuzzy) is not really =
intuitive.
...
> Yes, so it should be /italic/ *bold* _underline_ */bolditalic/*

I assume you're talking about something like:=20
*This text is bold*=20
and not:=20
*bold* This text is bold *end_bold*
Etc.

I think you raise a good point, and I concur. Your suggestion would make
formatting easier to remember. In addition, this is markup that many =
people
use for emphasis in text-only emails.=20

Question for PM: would it cause problems with the * used for lists?=20

> !Headline1 would IMHO be easier to recognize as
> .H1 headline1

IMHO, I disagree. The current markup means fewer keystrokes, until you =
get
to H5. I don't know about everyone else, but I rarely get that far. The
exclamation mark makes sense to me for something you want to "exclaim."
(Bad, bad pun, I know. And I'm just referring to the use of the !, as =
the
logic of my extremely bad pun would follow that H1 should have more =
!!!!!!
Than H6.)

>   indented paragraph
>   which is simply indented
> would be easier to recognize than
> : :indented paragraph which is simply indented

I would agree here. The colon has caused me problems with my wikismileys =
as
well as having times in blockquoted material.

Suggestion for PM: what about replacing : in the current markup with --> =
for
blockquote?

> Similar applies to lists. ...
> * item1
> * item2
> ...
>=20
> .b_list bullet=3D"#"
> .b_item
> this is my list item
>=20
> it can comprise of multiple paragraphs
>=20
> .e_item
> .b_item
> and this is the second item
>=20
> .e_list
>=20
> would help out for advanced list requirements.

Repeat my concern with the suggested heading markup. Too many =
keystrokes,
although I can understand how some people would probably find it helpful =
to
have a complementary system of formatting complex lists. I.e. the || =
table
markup is good and works for many applications, but sometimes you just =
need
the [[table]]..[[cell]] scheme.

Just weighing in...
Janice