| At line 214 changed one line |
| The "don't suprise the LaTeX users" criticism is valid. |
| The "don't surprise the LaTeX users" criticism is valid. |
| At line 217 added 65 lines |
|
| Design guidance rules like [[Avoid Text Tags]] needs to be balanced against each other. 20 punctuation combinations as suggested in [[Hints on extending]] are not [[Easy To Learn]]. At some point text tags have an advantage. I know no Wiki which does NOT use a fair number of text tags, at least for the essential dynamic "plugins". |
|
| -- [[Gregor Hagedorn]], 2007-04-13 |
|
| You are both right. It's perfectly valid to use text tags and an easy to remember formal language, preferably one that can be read out loud (to dictate it over a phone, for instance) -- once the markup becomes more complicated than just few simple text-formatting rules. Creole should **not** be that complicated -- by definition. |
|
| There are separate standards and markup languages that handle the more advanced things -- and they can be easily mixed with Creole. |
|
| As for the GenericExtensionProposal and its "text-taggedness" -- it's like arguing that the links or images are also text tags, because you need to put text in them. Note however, that this text is not defined in Creole in any way, and hence polish wiki sites can use Polish text. |
|
| -- [[Radomir Dopieralski]], 2007-Apr-16 |
|
| I need to be able to embed large amounts of data in plugins (source code), without interpreting any |
| double-greaterthan as the plugin end marker. I suggest that if {{{<<}}} is on a line alone, the end |
| marker must be {{{>>}}} on a line alone; otherwise, the next {{{>>}}} is the end marker. That's |
| similar to the difference between nowiki and block preformatted. |
|
| Any support or disagreement? |
|
| -- [[YvesPiguet]], 2007-May-30 |
|
| I think it's reasonable, especially when the ">>" is much rarer alone on a line. You could also use the difference to decide whether render the plugin result in a div or span. |
|
| -- [[RadomirDopieralski]], 2007-May-30 |
|
| YEP - need a generic extension proposal. Firstly a triple bracket like, { { { .... } } } and {{{[[[ quote ]]] }}} as I'm suggesting for a [[Quoting|quotes]] implies that the content between the brackets is not parsed normally by the creole parser. |
| *{ { { - everything is accepted |
| *{{{[ [ [}}} - only formatting is parsed, whitespaces and newlines are displayed as is. |
| *{{{<<<}}} - nothing in the brackets is part of the specification, except to say that the application must interpret it and/or reject it. |
|
| However, humans being humans, people are going to want to introduce their own code into Creole for those little things like font colours, sizes, table borders etc. etc. |
|
| If {{{<<< ....>>>}}} means "You've got to be kidding Creole doesn't have anything to say about text between those brakets. |
|
| {{{<<SOMETHING>>}}} might mean "not sure about that" and be reserved for an optional extension to the specification such as text colours. |
| More specifically:- |
|
| {{{<<#ABCDE#>>}}} would have the meaning "optional code #ABCDE#" |
|
| -- [[Isonomia]] May 2008 |
|
| I am personally against using {{{<< ... >>}}} for Plugins. My main reason is that the double-angle-brackets are operators in this world (think C/C++/Java etc.) |
|
| Plugins should use the most rare syntax in order to allow a greater number of character combinations to be placed inside (as parameters). If {{{<< ... >>}}} is used, the content between the brackets would not be able to use {{{>>}}}, making it impossible to use with C code inside. Well, escaping could be done for each {{{>>}}} but that would be tedious and would complicate the parser (not sure if escaping should even be possible inside the brackets for a plugin). |
|
| -- Mircea Bardac, August 2008 |
|
| Do you have any example of such a plugin that accepts C code in it in any real wiki out there, or uses "{{{>>}}}" for other purposes? |
|
| The only thing that comes to my mind is syntax highlighting, but that could be built into the preformatted blocks. |
|
| -- RadomirDopieralski, 6 September 2008 |
|
| I do not have an example of a plugin that accepts C code. All the C code I have seen was rendered in preformatted blocks, as you have mentioned. Then again, I haven't seen any wiki having a "plugin" markup. |
|
| I am considering using Creole and extending it in order to be able to custom render blocks. By "custom rendering" I mean <render this block only if "condition" is true>. These blocks can contain anything, including {{{<<}}}. |
|
| Also, how would someone build a "preformatted block with syntax highlight/line numbering" in Creole?. I am thinking that {{{<<syntax=C ...>>}}} could be used for this, because there is no support in the default markup. That means the contents of the tag would have to be somehow escaped if {{{<<}}} is in the block. |
|
| This is the main reason for trying to have something as uncommon as possible for the Plugin markup. You can't know exactly what needs to be passed to a plugin and the plugin markup should be as uncommon as possible (maybe even more verbose). This is probably one of the problems for HTML templating systems. There will always be conflicts and escaping would be needed, but I guess the need for this could be decreased. |
|
| As for the implementation, I believe it should be like a block markup ([[HintsOnExtending]]) to cover all possible uses of the Plugin. The 3-characters block markup would also decrease the chance of collisions. I think the specification should also include a way of defining the plugin name inside the markup - would definitely help the developer and make the plugin markup look clean across implementations - maybe something like {{{$$$plugin:...$$$}}} - $ was chosen randomly from the list. |
|
| -- Mircea Bardac, 7 September 2008 |
.