From: Matti A. <ma...@ik...> - 2002-11-08 20:14:34
|
[Manual Cc to mailing list... Damn mail clients!] On Friday 08 November 2002 18:46, Jeff Dairiki wrote: > > I'm still wondering about the anchor generation, however... > > Either of those suggestions is certainly doable, but my concerns are: > 1. They can lead to very unnecessarily long anchor names. > 2. Duplicate anchor names are possible. > 3. It might be too much magic. > > Example: > > !! #[References] > > is explicit. Everyone can see that there's something special > about "References" (even if they're not sure what it is.) Yes, but the problem is, that without automatic anchoring you'd have to edit the page to be able to link to it. That'd be a problem if you didn't have permissions to do so... However, I agree with your points 1 and 2, although duplicate anchor names might not be that dangerous. Shit happens, as they say... > Upon second thought, maybe the old-style ''emphasis'' __isn't__ > deprecated. > :-) Technical side-note: the implementation regexps would probably be much more robust if the tag characters were doubled: **bold**, __italic__, ==monospace==. But I really don't have strong feelings about those. > Other concerns are: lynx, links, emacs-w3, etc... > Not a big deal True, but all of them are used by advanced users, who probably can deal with both help texts being displayed at the same time. The real problem are casual users. There still might be some IE 4 and NN 4 users in corporate environments, and poor support for them might be a problem for PhpWiki adoption. Sigh, maybe I should implement support for them... Or what do you say? (Please, tell me they're not necessary.) m. ------------------------------------------------------- |