I'm all for a modern WYSIWYG editor however it would still require an underlying
syntax.
I disagree that that xhtml is a geek only storage format or that the current Wikisyntax
has a lower learning curve.
Hacking templates to overcome parser bugs is one of the worst experiences I've has as
an editor.
I think that an xml subset is the ideal should be the underlying format. It's the best
known technology, has mature development tools.
It could be parsed to and written to most efficiently by browser, and even the editor
could be simplified by using it.
A well designed format, would be easily transformed to and from other formats. (xslt ==
toOthers, domParser = from others. This could provide interoperability with other wikis
format and a friendlier variant of the existing wiki markup.
A well designed format should be:
easy to parse (read : unambiguous, won't require context or semantics to parse)
would be possible to auto complete
would permit gracefully error recovery without bothering the editor unless required.
Would specify syntax errors and advise on corrections
Would be fully learnable in a couple of hours...
If we put our heads together and come up with something like that we will make some real
progress. I think a time out is need because
the future ==
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Future is unclear and developing the new
editor without a design documents is just a way to perpetuate the problems of the current
syntax.
Operation Manager
E-mail: oren(a)romai-horizon.com
Mobil: +36 30 866 6706
Római Horizon Kft.
H-1039 Budapest
Királyok útja 291. D. ép. fszt. 2.
Tel: +36 1 492 1492
Fax: +36 1 266 5529
-----Original Message-----
From: wikitext-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitext-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Tkachenko
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:32 PM
To: Wikitext-l
Subject: Re: [Wikitext-l] Markup syntax
Amir,
Your idea doesn't sound that utopian or crazy to me but, IMO, it has its weak points.
First, it's a superstition that XML is the only standard way of representing
information. The fact that even after its heavy lobbying by the-company-we-all-know-about
languages like YAML still appear means that not all people are happy with XML. Similarly,
textile/markdown//bb-codes/wikitext and a dozen of others including latex, *nix man pages,
etc. are appearing even after HTML has been around for decades.
What is a standard? This is a set of rules. Strict ABNF schemes. UML, if you please. Can
you call Windows INI files "standard"? Yes, albeit they have just a few
entities. And YAML? TeX? Yes. And PDF? EPS? Yes, and they're even unreadable by
humans.
Similarly, wiki markup can be standardized. Creole is meant to be a standard but it's
limited; however, the direction is right and can be voted for. I am ready to personally
standardize and unificate wiki markup if only to prove my point.
Second, by dividing people into those who "can write texts using a visual
editor" and those who "have to write texts using a storage format"
you're making the same discrimination towards "geeks" that "geeks"
are currently making towards "common folk" by providing nothing but a text field
for writing articles.
Let's put this plain: XML and mostly (X)HTML (SGML at a whole) are storage formats.
This is why they have namespaces, DTD and other features. But they are generic and while
this is an advantage (even binary data can be stored in some form there) when it comes in
touch with humans things break or just don't move.
This is because XML and friends are not problem-based solutions. While I have to agree
that editing texts might be easier by some people using a rich editor I cannot agree that
editing them in plain text form must be limited to storage formats. Have you tried
hexediting an article? Having to perform codepage conversions (read, layout changes) in
your mind at the same time. This is the same.
Going further into this looks like speaking about personal taste for colors and forms so I
will just summarize it up: let's leave everyone with their tool. We have three groups
of "users": machines, who process the text - they're fine with XML or BAML
all alike; users, who need a visual editor to "parse markup" as was said on the
neighbor thread; and someone in between, "geeks", who are enough humans to
dislike XML and enough technicians to despise WYSIWYG.
This seems fair and not that big deal to implement because you'll get the first and
last "markups" ready by definition to have a working parser (something to store
trees in and something to input them using) and the middle (visual editor) will come in
naturally given the other two.
Signed,
P. Tkachenko
2012/2/8 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>il>:
Honestly, if i'm allowed to speak out my crazy
optimistic utopian
dream, then: <crazy-optimistic-utopian-dream>i want the current-style
wiki markup to disappear completely. I'm referring to *,
'''''', {{}},
[[]] etc. It was very beneficial for the beginning, because it was for
the most part more intuitive to type than <ul><li></li></ul>,
<strong></strong> and <a href=""></a>, but for people
who want
easiness, the Visual Editor is supposed to provide it and after that
most of them should never look back to the markup.
For people who will want text-based markup, it should be mostly XHTML.
So, <section>, <poem>, <source>, and <nowiki> are kinda XHTML so
they
can stay. *, '''''' and [[]] are not XHTML, and they can and
should be
replaced by XHTML, althogh. And {{}} needs its own markup, but it
should be XHTML-like <template name="citation needed" />.
So there. My idea of a bright wikifuture is less home-grown parsers
and more standards. It's easier for the developers and works
organically with the browsers. It's not necessarily easier for people
who want to write articles in plain text with markup, but hey, they
asked for it.</crazy-optimistic-utopian-dream>
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live
in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________
Wikitext-l mailing list
Wikitext-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l