(anonymous guest) (logged out)

Copyright (C) by the contributors. Some rights reserved, license BY-SA.

Sponsored by the Wiki Symposium and the Nuveon GmbH.

 
View Attach Info

Add new attachment

Only authorized users are allowed to upload new attachments.

This page (revision-30) was last changed on 01-Mar-2007 19:05 by MicheleTomaiuolo  

This page was created on 15-Jan-2007 08:39 by ChuckSmith

Only authorized users are allowed to rename pages.

Only authorized users are allowed to delete pages.

Difference between version and

At line 409 added 10 lines
Michele: the main motivation for me proposing the right arrow syntax was compatibilty with a proposed change in [[Crossmark]]. At this point, I don't know if they will be adopting that change or not. I don't see much activity from the Crossmark maintainers, and the discussion of [[Crossmark Creole Unification]] seems entirely stalled. Ivan, the main author of Crossmark, feels quite strongly that the description-first order reads more naturally, and that he should not be bound by the precedent of existing wikis if the original choice was an accidental mistake.
Adding to his argument is the fact that not //all// wikis implement the description-first order in pipe syntax. So, if you see {{{[[alpha|beta]]}}} out of context, there's still considerable ambiguity of which is which. Further, the arrow syntax can be implemented as an extension by all wikis without having to change their pipe syntax. Thus, if we encourage the use of the arrow as "best practice", then links can port reliably to all such wikis.
Of course, these arguments depend quite a bit on what Crossmark actually adopts, and to what extent other wikis adopt parts or all of the Creole standard. But I think there's a very good chance it will turn out to be a great help, and even if not, the cost is low - at least we get to write links in a syntax many people feel is more natural.
Radomir, your reasoning on external links seems sound to me. The consistency-favoring part of me is screaming, "hey, if {{{[[description|http://example.com]]}}} works, then why not {{{[[description|target]]}}}", but your proposal seems likely to do the right thing for users most of the time. I've had the experience many times of seeing a blue underlined url linking to a bare word in preview, and under your scheme that would simply go away.
-- [[Raph Levien]] 2007-02-10
Version Date Modified Size Author Changes ... Change note
30 01-Mar-2007 19:05 35.089 kB MicheleTomaiuolo to previous parenthesis
29 15-Feb-2007 16:25 34.751 kB ChristophSauer to previous | to last apologies accepted
28 14-Feb-2007 20:19 34.656 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last apologies
27 14-Feb-2007 20:15 34.357 kB ChristophSauer to previous | to last refactoring: go ahead but don't call it poor argumentation
26 14-Feb-2007 19:57 34.014 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last refactoring?
25 14-Feb-2007 02:25 33.717 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last proposal not good enough
24 13-Feb-2007 16:55 31.978 kB JaredWilliams to previous | to last Don't like it either & should apply to images too
23 13-Feb-2007 16:49 31.844 kB JaredWilliams to previous | to last Don't like it either
22 13-Feb-2007 13:27 31.332 kB 62.12.165.34 to previous | to last against [[foo -> bar]] and [[bar <- foo]]
21 10-Feb-2007 20:04 31.151 kB RaphLevien to previous | to last argument for arrow, support for radomir ext link
« This page (revision-30) was last changed on 01-Mär-2007 19:05 by MicheleTomaiuolo