phpwiki-talk

[Phpwiki-talk] Comments on reStructuredText Syntax?

[Reini U. <ru...@x-...>]

http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickref.html

Maybe I want to try to support a new/seperate syntax: reStructuredText
when time permits or someone else jumps in.

lib/InlineParser.php, lib/BlockParser.php,
pgsrc/Help%2FTextFormattingRules%2FreStructuredText

I especially like the two table formats: grid-style and simple-style,
which can be easily accomplished via plugins for now.

But thinking of syntax and the problems within the wysiwyg editors a
proper integration, maybe also of the mediawiki syntax rules should be
necessary.
Now our syntax supports old and new markup rules, markup=0 and 1.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/
http://helsinki.at/  http://spacemovie.mur.at/

Re: [Phpwiki-talk] Comments on reStructuredText Syntax?

[Manuel V. <man...@gm...>]

2006/6/3, Reini Urban <ru...@x-...>:
> http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickref.html
>
> Maybe I want to try to support a new/seperate syntax: reStructuredText
> when time permits or someone else jumps in.
>
> lib/InlineParser.php, lib/BlockParser.php,
> pgsrc/Help%2FTextFormattingRules%2FreStructuredText
>
> I especially like the two table formats: grid-style and simple-style,
> which can be easily accomplished via plugins for now.
>
> But thinking of syntax and the problems within the wysiwyg editors a
> proper integration, maybe also of the mediawiki syntax rules should be
> necessary.
> Now our syntax supports old and new markup rules, markup=0 and 1.

Hi all,

I wonder if it's mandatory -or at least just useful- to support a new
syntax. Unless if you plan to allow phpwiki to support lot's of syntax
(as it support now plenty of storage backend).

Now, if you really want to support an other syntax, I think mediawiki
flavour is almost mandatory as it's a kind of "standard" (many people
know it).

BTW, did you already heard about an exchange format between wiki's ?
I've read few info on mediawiki site months ago but what about phpwki ?

My 2 eurocents !
Manuel

Re: [Phpwiki-talk] Comments on reStructuredText Syntax?

[Reini U. <ru...@x-...>]

Manuel Vacelet schrieb:
> 2006/6/3, Reini Urban <ru...@x-...>:
>> http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickref.html
>>
>> Maybe I want to try to support a new/seperate syntax: reStructuredText
>> when time permits or someone else jumps in.
>>
>> lib/InlineParser.php, lib/BlockParser.php,
>> pgsrc/Help%2FTextFormattingRules%2FreStructuredText
>>
>> I especially like the two table formats: grid-style and simple-style,
>> which can be easily accomplished via plugins for now.
>>
>> But thinking of syntax and the problems within the wysiwyg editors a
>> proper integration, maybe also of the mediawiki syntax rules should be
>> necessary.
>> Now our syntax supports old and new markup rules, markup=0 and 1.
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I wonder if it's mandatory -or at least just useful- to support a new
> syntax. Unless if you plan to allow phpwiki to support lot's of syntax
> (as it support now plenty of storage backend).

That's the idea longterm.

> Now, if you really want to support an other syntax, I think mediawiki
> flavour is almost mandatory as it's a kind of "standard" (many people
> know it).

But it deliberately throughs away syntax options, which makes it 
possible to adapt it as standard. For historical and technical reasons.

The strongest: pagename url <=> internal mapping does not survive 
roundtrips. The problematic _ for space, no quote mechanism.
Some stupid magic pagename limitations. (lowercase beginning not 
allowed, a.s.o.)

If we make the syntax move, mediawiki will be of course the first, to 
attract more people and to convince the wikipedia guys that phpwiki is 
just better.

> BTW, did you already heard about an exchange format between wiki's ?
> I've read few info on mediawiki site months ago but what about phpwki ?

There was some discussion and a mailing-list at wi...@fr...

http://piclab.com/lee/index.php/Wiki_syntax_examples

But there was no solution yet.

There exists a solution, which is based on the easiest format: html. 
every wiki has a html output format.
david iberri's cpan package:
http://search.cpan.org/~diberri/HTML-WikiConverter-0.55/

and also http://search.cpan.org/~tels/Convert-Wiki-0.05/

-- 
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/  http://murbreak.at/
http://helsinki.at/  http://spacemovie.mur.at/

Re: [Phpwiki-talk] Comments on reStructuredText Syntax?

[Manuel V. <man...@gm...>]

2006/6/12, Reini Urban <ru...@x-...>:
> Manuel Vacelet schrieb:
> > I wonder if it's mandatory -or at least just useful- to support a new
> > syntax. Unless if you plan to allow phpwiki to support lot's of syntax
> > (as it support now plenty of storage backend).
>
> That's the idea longterm.

Ok, it's intresting.

> > Now, if you really want to support an other syntax, I think mediawiki
> > flavour is almost mandatory as it's a kind of "standard" (many people
> > know it).
>
> But it deliberately throughs away syntax options, which makes it
> possible to adapt it as standard. For historical and technical reasons.
>
> The strongest: pagename url <=> internal mapping does not survive
> roundtrips. The problematic _ for space, no quote mechanism.
> Some stupid magic pagename limitations. (lowercase beginning not
> allowed, a.s.o.)

I totally agree with you!
Mediawiki's syntax is counter productive and -from my pov- very
difficult to read in text mode.

> If we make the syntax move, mediawiki will be of course the first, to
> attract more people and to convince the wikipedia guys that phpwiki is
> just better.

;)
Some kind of embrace and extends  tactic ?

Anyway, it raises some questions:
* Do you plan to support n syntax in the same wiki ? (and people
choose the syntax they prefer ?)
* In this case, how to deal with limitation of some syntax (as you
highlighted) ?
* Is this useful with the development of more powerful wysiwyg approach ?

> > BTW, did you already heard about an exchange format between wiki's ?
> > I've read few info on mediawiki site months ago but what about phpwki ?
>
> There was some discussion and a mailing-list at wi...@fr...
>
> http://piclab.com/lee/index.php/Wiki_syntax_examples
>
> But there was no solution yet.
>
> There exists a solution, which is based on the easiest format: html.
> every wiki has a html output format.
> david iberri's cpan package:
> http://search.cpan.org/~diberri/HTML-WikiConverter-0.55/
>
> and also http://search.cpan.org/~tels/Convert-Wiki-0.05/

Ok, thank you for the links.
I wonder if sth based on OpenDocument standards is a good way.

-- Manuel