| At line 400 added 80 lines |
|
| How about the detection of external links and choosing the order automatically based on it? |
| * If there are no external links on either side of pipe, use the default link/description syntax. |
| * If there is an external link on either side, use it as the link the the other side as description. Strip leading and following spaces, convert the spaces inside the link into %20. |
| * If both sides are an external link, don't render it as link at all -- somoene tries to cheat on the users. |
|
| I'm aware that this takes away some user freedom -- linking to one url while displaying other and linking to pages with names being urls. But I think that both cases should be avoided anyways. |
|
| -- RadomirDopieralski, 2007-02-10 |
|
| 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 |
|
| I dislike the [[foo -> bar]] and [[bar <- foo]] proposal. As far as I am concerned, we're trying to make a small common set of rules. These two don't belong. |
|
| -- AlexSchroeder |
|
| I don't particulary like this either. Seems to assume there are only two parameters to a url link, so makes extensibility harder, if for instance what to add a title too. |
|
| Would much rather a method that say prefixed the local wiki page name with a character (/ maybe?). |
| So any amount of arguments could be used. Along the lines of CSS composite rules. |
| Eg. |
| {{{ background: #fff url(Foo.gif) 50% 3px no-repeat }}} |
|
| All the values distinct, so can be in any order. |
|
| -- [[JaredWilliams]], 2007-02-13 |
|
| Also whatever method is decided should be applied to images {{{ {{ }} }}} too, for consistency. |
|
| -- [[JaredWilliams]], 2007-02-13 |
|
| Aren't we trying to be too creative here? There is already one good and generally accepted way of making links. It works, it is generally widespread, and I think we should be pretty happy about it. Ok, someone pointed out the problem with having to paste or read long urls before finishing a thought and reading the link text. We can solve that by detecting the url/description order (Although I think that this would be ideally normalized, for example by some preprocessor, before saving. Of course no such thing in Creole). |
|
| Now we have a totally new markup introduced that does nothing new. The only purpose is to make some experienced users of certain wiki engines happy. I say that experienced wiki users are pretty familiar with the idea of wiki syntax and can adapt easily -- let's not carry over this division to the new generation of wikizens. |
|
| I have also a **huge** problem with this proposal. There are 3 advantages listed for this newly introduced markup: |
|
| * **There exists one wiki engine that uses it.** How is that an advantage? There exist hundreds of wiki engines that don't use it. |
| * **Works better with international keyboards.** How does it work better? Sorry, but I fail to see it. Can someone demonstrate it? |
| * **The order of link and secription is indicated in the markup.** I don't see it how it's obvious that the arrow should point from the description to the link and not the other way around. This had to be learned too. And this is no different than just learning what comes first, because the variant with the arrow pointing in the opposite direction is frowned upon. |
|
| Honestly, I can't see how a proposal with such poor argumentation got into Creole 0.5. |
|
| -- RadomirDopieralski, 2007-02-14 |
|
| Can we narrow the proposal to a single concrete syntax now, and list the advantages properly, possibly taken from this discussion? |
|
| Personally I'd see this as a Creole addition, to be used where there is demand for this kind of feature. But that's just me. |
|
| -- RadomirDopieralski, 2007-02-14 |
|
|
| That's ok for me, but don't call all of this poor argumentation - it's unfair and I disagree. I don't necessarily want to have it in a Creole 1.0, but defenetely I would like to see something like this as a implementation addition (or //addition reccomendation//) now, and in the core in later versions. |
|
| -- ChristophSauer, 2007-02-14 |
|
| I'm sorry, I was hoping to provoke refactoring ;) |
| But you are right, this is not poor argumentation, just the real arguments that are present in this discussion are not summarized on the proposal page. Please accept my apologies for the aggressive behavior. |
|
| -- RadomirDopieralski, 2007-02-14 |
|
| I really thought you where serious. apologies accepted :) |
|
| -- ChristophSauer, 2007-02-15. |
|
| Since some people complain about their difficulties in entering square brackets for links, why not to change this extension to use parenthesis? |
|
| I'm not convinced Creole needs an alternative syntax for links... but it would make life a bit easier for someone. |
|
| ((a link to -> another page)) |
|
| -- [[Michele Tomaiuolo]], 2007-03-01 |
.