Le Mardi 7 Février 2006 22:51, Tobias Toedter a écrit :
> 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.
It will look what it means to the users. But anyway, we won't show it so
what's the heck?
I don't understand why it is so hard to explain that if we are about to use
something that is not HTML as markup in comments, using things similar to
HTML while it is not HTML would just be confusing.
And being force to open and close tag is not user friendly either. The less
you have to type the better.
Frankly, I have to copy/paste bits of HTML in a comment, will it be more clear
for us if I have to put more HTML-like code around it or will it just creates
confusion between what is the code and what is not.
And how could be sure to differenciate the markup from the actual code. If
someone post
bla bla <code>adapadj ad</b></code>adadoa xadai dia</code>
will the software being able to guess that it should not close at the first
</code> because it is the second one that is not part of the code but of the
markup?
With
bla bla #code#adapadj ad</b></code>adadoa xadai dia#code#
there's no possible confusing, unless someone use #code# in comments.
>
> 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.
Why would it be so?
> 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".
As I said before, I cannot picture us add "pre" which in no language have any
meaning. And for code, well it could be an alias for verbatim, why not.
Apart from that, people will not what are tags if we tell them. If they cannot
understand it, they probably don't need these tags.
And in any case, the worse would be that people could use tags while not
realizing it.
For instance, if we use <code>, someone may post
balb a <code>tada<b>ad</b></code>
while expecting the whole "<code>tada<b>ad</b></code>" to be printed as it
was, while the software would actually print "tada<b>ad</b>"
What would happen in this case is simple: to provide eye-candy verbatim mode,
we would alter erroneously data.
If we use #code#, someone may post
balb a <code>tada<b>ad</b></code>
The software will print "<code>tada<b>ad</b></code>" as it was. If will not
put it as verbatim and provide nice indentation and stuff, but at least it
willk not alter it.
In this message, there are two example of problems we are likely to find if we
use HTML-like tags. There are more. :P
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
