(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-8) was last changed on 16-Mar-2007 16:10 by 83.18.142.106  

This page was created on 02-Jan-2007 02:15 by RadomirDopieralski

Only authorized users are allowed to rename pages.

Only authorized users are allowed to delete pages.

Difference between version and

At line 78 added 26 lines
Yes, I've been following the Crossmark's development, if you check th news items on this wiki you will see that the development of Creole and Crossmark was supposed to be somehow related -- we never heard from them anymore.
Crossmark has one incredibly powerful feature that is unavailable (by design decission) in Creole -- the macros. They allow you to add practically any semantic or presentational markup you might ever need. They are language-specific though (spoken language, not programming).
Matthew Paul Thomas has some very good advices, unfortuantelly he only talks about __using__ presentational markup together with the semantic one, not about __removing__ the semantic markup. Parts are presentational, parts are semantic. It's not always true that the presentational markup is easier.
Consider the inline quoting. There is a dozen ways to mark quotes, including italics and small-caps and whatnot. There are compicated punctuation rules regarding quoting, most of them language-dependent. Most of the quoting characters aren't even available on any keyboards -- I think it's reasonable to provide markup for them, as well as for the dashes. But you'd need a dozen of them supported if you wanted to go presentational -- and run into issues described on the SmartyPants page. Going semantic here saves a lot of trouble.
I've been doing some thinking on the subject (no kidding!) and I must say that most of the discussion we had here feels pretty stupid. I must admit that my lines sound more stupid, though ;) It seems like the whole presentation/semantic divide is irrelevant for Creole. [http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html|It's artifical anyways.] HTML and XHTML can define "presentational" markup becuase they have the style sheets to support them, you can say "anything that can be handled with css is presentation". And it's as good a definition as any other. Wiki markup can't afford this -- you can't split your message into repeatable styling and unique content, you need to put it whole into wiki markup, because there is no other way you can express it. The whole message, semantics and presentation included, must be there, leaving any of the parts (no matter how you make the division) will cripple the message.
So here's my position, which, incidentally, have been included as the very second of the [Goals]: ''Cover the common things people need.''
This means, have the terms that people actually understand and use. I'm not a native speaker, so I can't say whether "stressed", "strong" and "emphasized" is more common than "italic", "bold" or "underlined" (ok, the last one is probably pretty popular, but we don't want to promote it). I can, however, bet, that "lower left double curly quotation mark" is less known than "quote". I probably got the order wrong myself.
Thus, lets have "lists" together with "indented paragraphs", let's have "headings" together with "preformatted text", but let's use "separator" not "horizontal line", and explicit line breaks, not "center with spaces".
By the way, numbered list is a sore thumb here. From what I can see, people prefer to write 1., 2., 3. or a), b), c) manually. Sure, you can argue that numbered lists give you the power of autonumbering -- but you really don't want that if you want to refer to the points later on -- especially without a "reference" markup. And if you don't want to refer -- why use ordered list at all? Yes, I know, most wikis have markup for ordered lists (copied blindly from html) and we want to be compatible. I can live with that :)
So, to sum up one more of my boring rants -- in the context in which this discussion was started: I agree that markup for indenting is useful and we can (should) include it. I'm still missing markup for inline quoting. I don't much care how we call the emphasis, but I'd rather not replace the bullet list markup with just bullets "•" and newlines. We don't need 5 different tags for various kinds of quotes, although specific wiki engines should be free to use them when needed.
-- RadomirDopieralski, 2007-01-10
Interesting article: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/contentPresentation-26.html
-- [[Radomir Dopieralski]], 2007-Mar-15
Version Date Modified Size Author Changes ... Change note
8 16-Mar-2007 16:10 14.269 kB 83.18.142.106 to previous added link to a w3c article
7 10-Jan-2007 01:32 14.143 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last not semantic/presentational, just useful
6 09-Jan-2007 23:15 10.03 kB RaphLevien to previous | to last indented markup and Crossmark
5 08-Jan-2007 15:54 7.913 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last "presentational markup is easier" argument is simply wrong
4 08-Jan-2007 07:34 7.04 kB Christoph to previous | to last XHTML rendering should be left to the implementor
3 08-Jan-2007 05:34 6.861 kB RaphLevien to previous | to last response to Radomir
2 02-Jan-2007 02:16 5.746 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last rantitty rant
1 02-Jan-2007 02:15 5.746 kB RadomirDopieralski to last even more ranting
« This page (revision-8) was last changed on 16-Mär-2007 16:10 by 83.18.142.106