podwiki-devel

[podwiki] table support

[Thomas L. <to...@co...>]

finally I implemented tables for the POD markup too, it seems to work
as I expect. The question now is: shall we do this for the WikiShorthand
formatter too? I'm not sure.

Here is how it looks in POD:

  http://www.daemon.de/test/podwiki.pl?page=SandBox



regards, Tom

-- 
 Thomas Linden   (http://www.daemon.de/)  tom at co dot daemon dot de
 $_=`perl -v`;s;^.*ll;;s;$^=unpack"u", "'8V]D;')E<```";s;\W;;gs;$/=7*
 ($^=~s;.;;g);%^=map{$_=>1}split//,lc;$_=join$\, (sort keys(%^))[map{
 ord($_)-$/}split//,'1I7E13?@E:7C1A7C=1:35<7C'];s"0(.)" \U$1"g;print;

Re: [podwiki] table support

[Thomas L. <to...@co...>]

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:49:21PM +0200, Thomas Linden wrote:
> as I expect. The question now is: shall we do this for the WikiShorthand
> formatter too? I'm not sure.

I took a look at twiki (http://twiki.org) and surprisingly its
formatting looks very similar as my WikiShorthand formatter :-)

 http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TextFormattingRules#TWikiShorthand

so, I'm thinking about adding a TwikiShorthand formatter, which can
be twiki compatible.

And, as I think of the possibilities, another thing comes to mind:
PodWiki could be used as a kind of "meta-wiki" tool, which understands
most markups. In the future there could be a convert function which
converts pages imported from another wiki to POD (or the default
Shorthand markup, see podwiki.conf).


Tom

-- 
 Thomas Linden   (http://www.daemon.de/)  tom at co dot daemon dot de
 $_=`perl -v`;s;^.*ll;;s;$^=unpack"u", "'8V]D;')E<```";s;\W;;gs;$/=7*
 ($^=~s;.;;g);%^=map{$_=>1}split//,lc;$_=join$\, (sort keys(%^))[map{
 ord($_)-$/}split//,'1I7E13?@E:7C1A7C=1:35<7C'];s"0(.)" \U$1"g;print;

Re: [podwiki] table support

[David A. B. <Br...@ac...>]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Thomas Linden wrote:

> I took a look at twiki (http://twiki.org) and surprisingly its
> formatting looks very similar as my WikiShorthand formatter :-)

Yes, I'm familiar with TWiki. I used to use it;  I went from TWiki to UseMod
to TikiWiki and now to PodWiki. I still like many of the things in TWiki; in
fact, PodWiki reminds me of TWiki in some respects.

> so, I'm thinking about adding a TwikiShorthand formatter, which can
> be twiki compatible.

Should be relatively easy. Go for it!

> And, as I think of the possibilities, another thing comes to mind:
> PodWiki could be used as a kind of "meta-wiki" tool, which understands
> most markups. In the future there could be a convert function which
> converts pages imported from another wiki to POD (or the default
> Shorthand markup, see podwiki.conf).

Ahhhh, yes. Since I have this history of several wikis, the external formatter
concept of PodWiki was very attractive. I've gone through several conversions,
none of which came out quite right, and I didn't want to convert again by
hand; hence the Tiki formatter. It might be nice to have a conversion
function. Although, I have to say that the POD format itself I find a little
too "vertical" for my taste. The philosophy of TWiki I liked was that writing
a wiki page was "as easy as writing an email." I probably won't ever write
(large amounts) of POD wiki pages; I'll stick to the shorthand world.

One of the things that I've thought might be nice is to have the formatters
return text to Runner, rather than printing. Then, Runner is the only one that
has to know how to break up the paragraphs, do the include processing, etc.
So, it does become a meta-wiki tool in that respect.


On another topic, you might want to take a look at the Changelog to see what
I've been up to over the past 12 hours or so. The bugfix on included pages is
actually pretty major; I was apalled that I hadn't caught that earlier. I must
have only looked at POD format pages that did the includes. Let me know if
my changes aren't clear.

-- 
David A. Bright
Br...@ac...
dab...@us...

Re: [podwiki] table support

[David A. B. <Br...@ac...>]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Thomas Linden wrote:

> finally I implemented tables for the POD markup too, it seems to work
> as I expect. The question now is: shall we do this for the WikiShorthand
> formatter too? I'm not sure.

I think so. I've been pondering the issue for a while. I'm not particularly
enamored of the tiki format, although it does have the advantage of having a
definite table start/end mark (unlike the TWiki format, for example). It lacks
the ability to specify attributes, such as header (<th>), alignment, etc. I
used the TWiki format back when I was using that wiki. It was pretty easy to
use. The thing that I particularly liked was that it pretty much did the
"right thing" given a plain text representation of the table, so it was easy
to take tables written in an email (I eschew HTML mail) and plunk them into a
wiki page and they came out looking right. You could go the other way, too.

So, I'm trying to think of a minimal-markup table syntax that still gives
moderate layout control.

I looked at your POD table layout and it looks promising. I'm curious though,
it looks like "row" and "col" are reversed. From the Sandbox page:

=table bgcolor=gree,border=1

=col

=row

blah

=row

blubber

=colback

=tableback

produces (in wonderful ASCII art):

+-------------+--------------+
| blah        | blubber      |
+-------------+--------------+

when I would have expected:

+-------------+
| blah        |
+-------------+
| blubber     |
+-------------+



I'll keep thinking about it.

-- 
David A. Bright
Br...@ac...
dab...@us...