|
in reply to Wiki-Style syntax for posting
I have two comments on this one.
First it would be very cool to have alternative markup formats. I for one would very much like to have POD or asciidoc, but with perlmonks' powerful linking scheme. That said I guess it's rather much work, but so far I'm not a developer here.
My second comment is that for most nodes you just need <p> for paragraphs and <code>...</code> for code. Perhaps [...] for links, but that's about it. If you want to get an answer, I think it's not too much to ask to invest some time into the prerequisites (here: markup). |
Re^2: Wiki-Style syntax for posting
by LesleyB (Friar) on Oct 16, 2008 at 06:28 UTC
|
I can't see the point in having a number of input methods.
If people get confused by one - or don't bother to learn how to use one - then how much more confused will they be by many?
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
My initial feeling was that many newbies don't read the markup info anyway, and to present multiple markup choices might be even more confusing than sticking to one - or it will be just ignored anyway as is the existing information.
Having thought about that a little further, the aim of the OP was perhaps to make the posting a little easier for those with little or no markup experience and that actually might make it easier for some newbie folk to actually post something readable first time out. Or not. The problem is they aren't reading the info that is out there and many do seem to have expectation that perlmonks is like any other phpBB/wiki thing out there.
I have a high level of experience in (X)HTML so the perlmonks markup style has never bothered me. I have so very little experience of writing POD I might as well say no experience of it, but I suspect that is not true for most other monks. I have used wiki markup, the phpBB markup and others but I'm not actually a huge fan of wiki markup and the phpBB seems to be the defacto for a lot of forums these days. When the wiki markup came out came out, I couldn't understand what precisely was the difference between learning the existing markup and the new markup system. For me it was and still is counterintuitive to use --- to mean strikeout or [[[[[ for whatever it means. Whereas everyone else thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Whatever. It was also rather condescendingly presented to me as something for people who didn't know (X)HTML markup and, as I did and I was annoyed about the condescension, I figured I didn't really need to learn how to use it.
The [ ... ] markup introduces not only shorthand but also a layer between the link and the write up so if parts of a link path change in the future, these can be accommodated. This has already been pointed out by another poster in this thread. I have no idea if other markup provides such a layer. I don't think phpBB does and I am not sure about wiki
If we introduced wiki markup then it wouldn't be fair not to concede to POD markup and then we'd have to choose what is the default markup. By the argument that everyone finds it too hard to read the markup rules and they want one they know already .. well .. that applies differently to different folk ... you POD, me XHTML and others wiki.... and we'd be stuck taking votes to see which is the most popular markup
Then the temptation to randomly select the default markup starts to show up ... oh dear.... could spend years developing arcane pseudo-random selection methods...
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
I personally believe that one nice addition, whichever markup language is provided, would be a set of word processor-like buttons and err... well... keybindings to automate the insertion of some constructs: letting aside for a moment the fact that PM as for itself is much resistant to JavaScript, which in turn would be required for this feature, I'm also sure that the fact I'm now supporting it at least in principle, will literally astonish many people both in view of my past (and eternal!) advocacy for LaTeX and for taking exactly the opposite position in a similar discussion not too much time ago. (Unfortunately, I can't find the relevant link now.) The point is, both are not incompatible with the former: by actively blogging on my tumblelog and using a similar tool I verified that you won't loose your manhood by doing so!
FWIW (not much here, and I'm going slightly OT...) there are some considerations that I can do on those insertion methods; in particular Tumblr offers three input options: visual editor, raw HTML and markdown. With the visual editor you can still edit the HTML source of the text, by means of a suitable button. However the HTML is often "massaged," which is a major hassle and bothers me much, (but perhaps it has to do with intrinsic limitations of JS+HTML) and for some particular posts in which you want precise control over what you want to do, you have to switch to raw html. Sadly enough, raw html massages the code a little from what I have seen, too: probably due to "user friendliness." (E.g. straight double quotes get converted to opening and closing ones depending on the position relative to "words.")
Wikipedia has a set of buttons too, and they do not suffer the problems hinted to above: they just insert the appropriate markup. No more, no less. One very nice feature that I have seen in only one commenting system of a blog is realtime rendering, with restricted html as an input method.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
I can't see the point in having a number of input methods.
I personally believe that I can see one: TMTOWTDI. Some people may feel at ease with HTML-like markup, others with the alternatives suggested thus far. You're comparing two uncomparable thought categories: people appearently/supposedly get confused by the mechanisms of one editing methods. Not by the fact that there's one editing methods, or that there may be more, FWIW.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
