From: Marjorie R. <mro...@ma...> - 2002-11-12 20:45:41
|
I finally found this previous post. Confusing as all heck, I must say, but I'll be happy to help edit TextFormattingRules and HowToUseWiki if there is a natural point at which that seems like a good idea. (i.e. a point at which development seems to have slowed down on these markup changes?) My 1.3.3 wikis really aren't usable by the average person until the dual-personality of two different markup styles is mostly gone. At least the documentation needs fixing, at a minimum. Let me know if I can be helpful in that regard. Best, Margie ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Jeff Dairiki <da...@da...> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:59:38 -0800 >> Maybe a silly question, but I am using php1.3.3 and I cannot format >> tables. Is there something I need to setup from default? The >> 'textformattingrules' page works with table formatting but not my normal >> pages. > >(This should go in the FAQ if it's not there already...) > >We're in the midst of a (very slow) transition to a new set of >markup rules. Starting in 1.3.3 there's a checkbox on the edit >form which determines whether the page is displayed using the old >or new rules. The default for new pages is to use the new rules. >(TextFormattingRules describes the old markup rules.) > >The new rules are described, more or less, at > http://phpwiki.sf.net/phpwiki/NewBlockMarkup >and > http://phpwiki.sf.net/phpwiki/NewInlineMarkup > >The new rules are not backwards-compatible with the old rules. >(Though backward-compatibility is kept, as much as is possible.) > >One of the big differences, which you've discovered, is that the >old-style tables don't work with the new formatting rules. > >You have several choices on how to get tables: > > 1. Use the old formatting rules (uncheck the checkbox on the > edit-page form) and use old-style tables. > > 2. Use the new formatting rules, and use the new > "definition list" style tables. Not all table structures > can be represented, but if they can, the new syntax is, > IMHO, much more natural and cleaner... > > Type 1 | > Variation A | > Description of type A-1. > Variation B | > Or you can use type B-1. > Type 2 | > And so forth. > > gets you > > +---------+---------------+---------------------------+ > | | Variation A | Description of type A-1. | > | Type 1 +---------------+---------------------------+ > | | Variation B | Or you can use type B-1. | > +---------+---------------+---------------------------+ > | Type 2 | And so forth. | > +---------+-------------------------------------------+ > > 3. The current CVS code (but not 1.3.3) has an OldStyleTable > plugin which can be used to include old-style tables > within new-style pages. > > <?plugin OldStyleTable > | Col 1 | Col 2 > | a | b > ?> > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm >Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! >http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en >_______________________________________________ >Phpwiki-talk mailing list >Php...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpwiki-talk > |
From: John K. <jo...@ke...> - 2002-11-13 00:05:56
|
(Sorry - this should've gone to the list not just Jeff). >Probably not yet. What's the general feeling of everyone else regarding >how long we should keep old-style markup around? Forever? I looked at a whole bunch of wikis and chose phpwiki because of the simplicity of the markup. A lot of my wikis are used by schoolkids aged 7-11 and simple markup makes the difference between them having a go at making themselves a page and not doing. I'm also looking into the possibility of using phpwiki with people with learning difficulties and for building a community reminiscences site for old people in our area. Both of these projects are only feasible with phpwiki's very simple markup. I'm currently at 1.3.2 because I was waiting to see whether old-style markup would stay around for the next stable release. If it's at all possible to keep old-style, please do :) John. -- ------------------------------------ 0113 2289316 / 07944 755613 jo...@ke... / www.kershaw.org AOL johnkershaw / Y! john_m_kershaw ------------------------------------ |
From: Matti A. <ma...@ik...> - 2002-11-12 21:12:33
|
Margie, I recently announced documentation for the new formatting rules (see the archives for the whole thread, maybe a week ago). The version is available at http://mairas.net/wiki/NewTextFormattingRules. See also http://mairas.net/wiki/DynamicTextFormattingHelp. Please edit them as you see fit. Jeff, should I consider the old emphasis markup obsolete or not? That is, should I fix NewTextFormattingRules to use the old-style markup, or do you think the new markup is going to get reliable enough for real use? Maybe there could be a configuration option to disable UI for the old markup altogether? That way new setups would avoid the markup hassle altogether. In that case all pages in pgsrc would have to be translated to new markup, though. Cheers, Matti |
From: Jeff D. <da...@da...> - 2002-11-12 21:39:26
|
> Jeff, should I consider the old emphasis markup obsolete or not? Probably not yet. What's the general feeling of everyone else regarding how long we should keep old-style markup around? > That > is, should I fix NewTextFormattingRules to use the old-style markup, or > do you think the new markup is going to get reliable enough for real > use? I'm not sure I understand that part of your question. I think the new markup is reliable enough now (at least a reliable as the rest of the newer features). There may be small changes in the markup syntax, but I don't envision any wholesale changes... > Maybe there could be a configuration option to disable UI for the old > markup altogether? Yes. That's my vision of where we're heading. (Perhaps also a configuration option to disable the new markup altogether?) > In that case all pages in pgsrc would have to be translated > to new markup, though. That's probably not a big problem. As of a few weeks ago, that's what the CVS code does anyway. (The old markup code is no longer used, instead the old-markup converted to new markup, then run through the new markup engine...) When we get to that point, we can either auto-convert old to new markup upon zip/pgsrc import, or upon page edit... |
From: Joby W. <joby@u.washington.edu> - 2002-11-12 21:59:17
|
Jeff Dairiki wrote: >>Jeff, should I consider the old emphasis markup obsolete or not? > > > Probably not yet. What's the general feeling of everyone else regarding > how long we should keep old-style markup around? > > I will be using it for awhile for an interanl app. There is no reason that we shouldn't deprecate it though -- leave the ability (checkbox) to select an old markup in the code, but remove the display of the checkbox from the default theme. Probably should wait until Markup 2 is set and relatively final for a couple increments. jbw |
From: Jeff D. <da...@da...> - 2002-11-12 21:46:38
|
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:45:31 -0500 "Marjorie Roswell" <mro...@ma...> wrote: > I finally found this previous post. Confusing as all heck, I must say, > but I'll be happy to help edit TextFormattingRules and HowToUseWiki. In addition to Matti's NewTextFormattingRules, (which will be making their way into the CVS repository soon) I also wrote some notes in an attempt to clear up the new/old table confusion: http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/TableMarkup (Please do feel free to add/edit/rewrite/contribute any existing or non-existing documentation as you think is needed.) |
From: Matti A. <ma...@ik...> - 2002-11-12 22:11:27
|
Jeff Dairiki wrote: >>is, should I fix NewTextFormattingRules to use the old-style markup, or >>do you think the new markup is going to get reliable enough for real >>use? > I'm not sure I understand that part of your question. > I think the new markup is reliable enough now (at least a reliable as > the rest of the newer features). There may be small changes in > the markup syntax, but I don't envision any wholesale changes... Oh, sorry... I hadn't noticed you already had updated InlineParser.pm. I referred to those parsing bugs. There still seems to be some bugs lurking for your fixing pleasure - see http://mairas.net/wiki/NewTextFormattingRules. _*bold italic*_ doesn't work yet. Unrelated to that, anchor references are rendered with the preceding hash visible. See the above link for an example as well. > (Perhaps also a configuration option to disable the new markup > altogether?) Maybe, but would that hinder the gradual deprecation of old markup? I don't think it'd be a good long-term goal to support both markup versions indefinitely. > When we get to that point, we can either auto-convert old to new > markup upon zip/pgsrc import, or upon page edit... That'd be great! m. |
From: Jeff D. <da...@da...> - 2002-11-12 22:30:03
|
> There still seems to be some bugs > lurking for your fixing pleasure - see > http://mairas.net/wiki/NewTextFormattingRules. _*bold italic*_ doesn't > work yet. Okay. I guess I'll fix things so that _*this*_, *_this_*, (and maybe **this** ?) all mark-up as bold italic. > Unrelated to that, anchor references are rendered with the preceding > hash visible. See the above link for an example as well. You mean that [#anchor] gets marked up as <a href="#anchor">#anchor</a>? That's deliberate --- so you can visually tell [anchor] (link to page) from [#anchor] (link to anchor), and for consistency with [page#anchor] (which shows up as "page#anchor"). You can always use [name|#anchor] (or [anchor|#anchor]) to over-ride the default text... |
From: Jeff D. <da...@da...> - 2002-11-12 22:59:24
|
> >how long we should keep old-style markup around? > > Forever? That's certainly a possibility, I think. (Another arguement for keeping the old-style markup is that it's certainly more traditional wiki-ish.) > I looked at a whole bunch of wikis and chose phpwiki > because of the simplicity of the markup. A lot of my wikis are used > by schoolkids aged 7-11 and simple markup makes the difference > between them having a go at making themselves a page and not doing. Note that the (or at least my) main motivation for moving to the new markup was to make the syntax more intuitive (i.e. more WYSIWYGish). E.g. you make indented paragraphs like: Here's an idented paragraph. (The old markup involves a leading ";:".) Nested lists are layed out like: * Item 1 * Subitem 1.1 * Subitem 1.2 * Item 2 * Subitem 2.1 |
From: John K. <jo...@ke...> - 2002-11-13 06:12:43
|
>Note that the (or at least my) main motivation for moving to the >new markup was to make the syntax more intuitive (i.e. more WYSIWYGish). >E.g. you make indented paragraphs like: > > Here's an idented paragraph. > >(The old markup involves a leading ";:".) > >Nested lists are layed out like: > > * Item 1 > * Subitem 1.1 > * Subitem 1.2 > * Item 2 > * Subitem 2.1 I just had a look at the NewTextFormattingRules page at http://mairas.net/wiki/NewTextFormattingRules Seems good. The problem I see is not updating the pages (easily done by algorithms) but updating the users. Once a non-computer person's got to the point where they've got the hang of putting up web pages, they'll freak if I tell them it's all got to change :( I'm all for keeping the old markup around for all the folks who regularly type web addresses into the Yahoo search box - not because it's right, but because it works, and they ain't gonna change just because someone tells them different :) John -- ------------------------------------ 0113 2289316 / 07944 755613 jo...@ke... / www.kershaw.org AOL johnkershaw / Y! john_m_kershaw ------------------------------------ |