On 3/26/07, Ben Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, I don't know what number of leading spaces would be an appropriate > > default. I'd lean to four, but I don't know that setting it at four > > will significantly reduce the scope of the problem. (And it may be > > that a compromise is ultimately more confusing than either extreme.) > > This lowers consistency with the markup, which could confuse the same > authors who would be confused by one leading whitespace.
Agreed. It's for this reason I'd just as soon not have it enabled at all by default. If I had the option, I'd probably would not use it all, or at a minimum set it at something over 5 to avoid conflicts with paragraph indentions. > I voted +2 on using specific markup (e.g. [@ @]) because that markup > falls clearly in the intent of the author: it is pretty rare to > encounter that markup in normally readable text. The root issue here > is whether a neophyte or non-tech savvy author will encounter a markup > condition which is accidental and confuses him as to the cause. By > having a clear markup (e.g. [@ @]), then we can be fairly certain a > neophyte author won't accidentally trigger a <pre> block. I guess this > idea seems to work for me because there is a clear, visual cue > triggering the block. > Along with [@ @] indicating <pre></pre>, then [@@ @@] could indicate > <pre><code></code></pre>. This seems to work for me as the latter is > "a little more" than the former. Agree with this also, and for the exact same reasons. I still get confused at times between the difference between [@ @] and [= =]. Generally, plow through by trial and error. > FWIW, the leading space = <pre> is my least favorite markup rule. :-/ Ditto. Cheers, Dan PS. I'd still like a markup that converted initial > or >> to automatic space insertions of multiples of some configurable number. _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
