From: Jeff D. <da...@da...> - 2001-11-27 21:24:54
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:09:22 -0800 (PST) "Adam Shand" <ad...@pe...> wrote: > there was some brief discussion, i believe the only reason it was chosen > is that no one could think of anything else that was available. moin uses > {{{text}}} which isn't great, i'm not sure what usemod uses. Ooph. {{{text}}} is ugly. Usemod supports <tt></tt>, <b></b>, <i></i>, <em></em>, <strong></strong>, and also supports the legacy ''italic'' and '''bold'''. I don't know if there are alternate forms for <tt> (I don't think so). > > (I'm not sure I like the current __ and '' syntax either, but it's > > kind of late to change that. If I had the chance to do it over again > > today, I think I would do (more or less UseMod style): > > > > Support <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <tt>fixed</tt>. > > > > Support also some e-mail heuristic style markup: > > *bold*, _italic_, etc. > > i like /italic/ though i'm not sure if that conflicts with anything. is > there any reason to support _underline_? or is that deemed confusing. > i've certainly never missed it anyway. > > is it really too late? Maybe not. I think the above syntaxes could be added without breaking the older syntaxes (at least not much), so we could have it all. > > I think I'm against disabling WikiWord linkage within <tt>, though I do > > like UseMods <pre> and <nowiki> tags to help with that problem. > > how come? in what situations do you want monospaced text and WikiWords? It's true that I can't imagine very many circumstances where one would want monospaced WikiWords. However, I think it's just plain confusing if italicizing and emboldening behave differently than monospacing. (Unless the markup gives more specific hints that other magic is going on, e.g. <code>ThisIsNotaWikiWord</code>.) |