On Monday 06 February 2006 22:13, Mathieu Roy wrote: > I think worse to have an unknown HTML tag in a page while it is not an > HTML tag than having a text only tag that means what we want.
Why? Every browser silently ignores any tag it doesn't recognize. And if we
display "#verbatim# *markup code* #verbatim#" to the user, it'll look
surely strange.
We also need to use an opening and closing tag, like <verbatim> and
</verbatim>. Otherwise it will be much harder to correctly disable/enable
the markup.
I think it's also easier to understand the syntax of the wiki, should we add
more tags in the future, like for example <pre> and <code>. Last, not
least, most people nowadays will associate the "<>" signs with the meaning
of "tags".
I would like to keep the syntax of <verbatim>.
> Also, using < > will also create additional issues with XML files.
No, it won't, because it will be stored in the DB as < and >, just
like the rest of the '<' and '>' signs. It's already allowed to use text
like "a < b" or "<server>" in the text entry forms. Those entries do not
pose problems with XML files.
Cheers,
--
Tobias
Warning: Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.
pgpjjhJqoLXnG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Savane-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
