Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-15 11:46 (-0500):
> = heading level 1
> == heading level 2
> =begin list
I see this going wrong with =heading level 1 already. I like the numbers
in =headN too, by the way, as it makes inconsistencies easier to spot.
> And then replaced [...] and [=...] and /.../ and *...* with their more
> POD-like: L[...], C[...], I[...] and B[...] with a bare [foo] working as
> a "I have no idea what I'm linking to, but do the right thing" sort of
> wikiness, where L[...] is a more structured, POD-like link. For example:
L[] C[] I[] B[] are all hard to read. With <>, the weight is evenly
distributed, while with [], the weight is on the outside, next to that
capital letter that is just as large.
Visual comparison:
L[] C[] I[] B[] # I is worst
L<> C<> I<> B<>
So if [] is going to be used, may I suggest using lc letters with it
then?
l[] c[] i[] b[]
L[] C[] I[] B[]
L<> C<> I<> B<>
Still not great, but better IMO. Why are <> bad, by the way? Can't we
just change the meaning to be qq-like, that is: with nested content?
That means only for non-unicode >><< you need extra angle brackets.
Or maybe we introduce [] as an alternative for <>.
Also, how is [EMAIL PROTECTED] parsed? # I find this very hard to parse,
# visually
Likewise, %?INC{something}?
Two possible sources of inspiration for the whole documentation thing:
* Text::MetaMarkup
* Paragraphs CAN begin with a block level html tag, "h1: heading"
* Inline HTML tags can be used as "{b:bold}"
* Paragraph starting with * is a list
* Paragraph starting with # is comment
* Verbatim paragraphs simply start with "pre:"
* No support for tables yet
* PodTables
* See http://pugs.kwiki.org/?PodTables
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
