On 1/22/06, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian(a)cadifra.com> wrote:
There's
nothing that can be done with these advanced templates that
can't be done just as easily and with a significantly lower entry
level for editing with single-level, uncomplicated templates.
Which, in answer to your question, is how templates were meant to be
played with.
Totally wrong. BTW, the duty of prove is on your side. Ah, yes and
if you fail you remove the template, I see.
Do you see me edit-warring over meta-templates? No, because I know
it's pointless. Nevertheless, I have been trying to create
semantically cleaner alternatives. I think you have missed the fact
that these templates weren't created until well after the template
syntax (I believe they originated on en in April of last year). If
the template syntax was intended to be used in this way, we would have
seen it before now.
Shure yes. We have invented them solely because we
intend to shock
people with ugly stuff and because we are wanna-be coders.
Ah yes, and because we want to create DOS attack vectors for the
servers.
Indeed we must be stupid. Strange, that we have not been banned
yet.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Another silly one is "templates should be used
sparingly". We have
a concept that should not be used. Why? Not because of the concept,
because some people make unproven claims about the implementation.
Shure. Remove every template. They are not needed to create the wiki
pages. We can also write html directly.
There must be some logical fallacy where you hyperbolise your
opponent's arguments in order to make him seem foolish.
BTW I use my own html compiler for that task (for my
non wiki pages).
I'm shure you would do that by hand. Because your code is not meant to
change, right?
I do, actually, because I think it's quite important that people can
understand my code. Including myself.
Hmm, I didn't realise we were here. Shall we get off the devs' list?
--
Sam