Re: RFC: Monastery Markup Introduction

Nicely done, but I think it's still too long for those who tend not to read the docs if there's any way around it... In particular, I'd mention <c>...</c> together with <p>...</p> right at the beginning. In my opinion, they're the two most important tags, by far, because with those tags alone, every first-time poster can create legible, properly formatted nodes. Everything else is more or less nice-to-have, and can be learnt later step by step as people become more familiar with the Monastery... Just my two cents.

Comment on Re: RFC: Monastery Markup Introduction Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Monastery Markup Introduction by ww (Archbishop) on Mar 07, 2008 at 23:25 UTC
Excellent thought! Perhaps the "too long" could best be ameliorated with an initial heading on the order of Must knows with a section which would cover only para and code tags; followed by the balance of the Textual.... section and the caveats? I also like blokhead's table but wonder if that might not work even better as the foundation for replacing the existing Perl Monks Approved HTML tags; an observation I make as one who works with .html much of the time and who finds that table (as it stands) lacking for those without .html background, "whose name (it appears) is multitude."	[reply]
Re^3: RFC: Monastery Markup Introduction by almut (Canon) on Mar 08, 2008 at 09:05 UTC
... with an initial heading on the order of Must knows* ...* Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I think it should leave no doubt from the structure of this intro what is compulsory reading (for first-time posters not to annoy their audience right away), and what is optional reading that you can come back to at some later time, in case things should appear too confusing now...	[reply]