On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 09:05:46AM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:55:27PM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > However, using allows web designers to style that block
> > > differently than blocks.
> >
> > So
On 3/27/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:55:27PM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
> [...]
> > However, using allows web designers to style that block
> > differently than blocks.
>
> Somehow I think I'd prefer to see this done using classes -- i.e., something
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:55:27PM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ben Wilson wrote:
> > > Along with [@ @] indicating , then [@@ @@] could indicate
> > > . This seems to work for me as the latter is
> > > "a little more" than the former.
I'm leaving any
Kathryn Andersen said...
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:37:52AM +0100, marc wrote:
> > Kathryn Andersen said...
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0100, marc wrote:
> > > > > Tegan Dowling said...
> > > > > > On 3/24/0
On 3/26/07, Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Wilson wrote:
> > On 3/25/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Along with [@ @] indicating , then [@@ @@] could indicate
> > . This seems to work for me as the latter is
> > "a little more" than the former.
> >
>
> What's the d
On Monday 26 March 2007 23:23, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:13:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Note that it in addition to preformatted, it's also 'escaped' in the
> > sense that markup within [EMAIL PROTECTED]@] will not be recognized. So I'm
> > someone
> > is
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:13:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >the difference between writing (or seeing):
> >
> > This is
> > some preformatted
> > text.
> >
> >and
> >
> >->[@
> >This is
> >some preformatted
> >text.
> >@]
>
> Note th
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
the difference between writing (or seeing):
This is
some preformatted
text.
and
->[@
This is
some preformatted
text.
@]
Note that it in addition to preformatted, it's also 'escaped' in the sense
that markup within [EMAIL PROTECTED]@]
Ben Wilson wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Along with [@ @] indicating , then [@@ @@] could indicate
> . This seems to work for me as the latter is
> "a little more" than the former.
>
What's the difference between and ? I've checked all my
favourite HTML
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 ulti
On 3/25/07, The Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Kathryn Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm wondering if there could be a compromise: rather than having a
> > *single* leading space trigger preformatting, there could be a certain
> > number of leading spaces required, like f
On 3/25/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> 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 compromis
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:03:53AM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> On 3/26/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The syntax exists; it's a very easy to use; it is used frequently.
>
> Granted. Still doesn't tell me at all what you use it for. I have
> NEVER used it until the latest revisions of my
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:24:02AM -0400, Neil Herber (nospam) wrote:
> On 2007-03-26 Kathryn Andersen is rumoured to have said:
> > For example, there's a world of difference between
> > mv -f Makefile Makefile.bak
> > imake -DUseInstalled -I/usr/openwin/lib/X11/config -DHasGcc2=YE
On 2007-03-26 Kathryn Andersen is rumoured to have said:
> For example, there's a world of difference between
>
> mv -f Makefile Makefile.bak
> imake -DUseInstalled -I/usr/openwin/lib/X11/config -DHasGcc2=YES
>
> and
>
> mv -f Makefile Makefile.bak imake -DUseInstalled
> -I/usr/o
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:03:53AM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> On 3/26/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The syntax exists; it's a very easy to use; it is used frequently.
>
> Granted. Still doesn't tell me at all what you use it for. I have
> NEVER used it until the latest revisions of my
My wiki users are mostly college students and faculty. They're almost
all users of MS Word. The commonest reason for them having spaces at
the beginning of a line, paragraph actually, is pasting in indented
text.
I tested with my copy of Word 97. Using default settings, I found that
text indented
On 3/26/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Editor said...
> > On 3/25/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With respect, dumbing down features to meet the inability of folk to
> > > adapt is not a road that I wish to travel.
> >
> > To be honest, I've never understood the reason for the
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 06:48:05AM +0100, marc wrote:
> The Editor said...
> > I'd be interested again in hearing your reasons for keeping the
> > leading white space rule. Is there actually some reason it shouldn't
> > be turned off by default?
>
> The syntax exists; it's a very easy to use; it
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 07:37:52AM +0100, marc wrote:
> Kathryn Andersen said...
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0100, marc wrote:
> > > > Tegan Dowling said...
> > > > > On 3/24/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Kathryn Andersen said...
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0100, marc wrote:
> > > Tegan Dowling said...
> > > > On 3/24/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's even less obvious that something as small as a single lea
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 06:48:06AM +0100, marc wrote:
> However, I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge for
> complete removal, and the comments of others has made me more than a
> little nervous about where PmWiki is heading.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any feature w
The Editor said...
> On 3/25/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With respect, dumbing down features to meet the inability of folk to
> > adapt is not a road that I wish to travel.
>
> To be honest, I've never understood the reason for the leading space
> rule.
The fact is that a function exi
Patrick R. Michaud said...
> I'd like to avoid the need for the explanation -- especially because
> the outcome is extremely disproportionate to the cause. Most authors'
> first encounter with the leading space rule comes from entering
> a line of text with a leading space, which then results in
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:04:56AM -0400, Neil Herber (nospam) wrote:
> On 2007-03-25 Patrick R. Michaud is rumoured to have said:
> >Still, it can always be done as a configuration variable, so that
> >setting $EnableWSPre to a number such as 1, 4, or 8 results in requiring
> >that number of lead
On 2007-03-25 Patrick R. Michaud is rumoured to have said:
> Still, it can always be done as a configuration variable, so that
> setting $EnableWSPre to a number such as 1, 4, or 8 results in requiring
> that number of leading spaces to treat lines as preformatted text.
>
If you went down this r
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:00:13AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > It's even less obvious that something as small as a single leading
> > space is the problem. When we explain the reason for the long lines
> > to authors, it
On 3/25/07, Kathryn Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm wondering if there could be a compromise: rather than having a
> *single* leading space trigger preformatting, there could be a certain
> number of leading spaces required, like four or eight. One or two spaces
> are likely to be acciden
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0100, marc wrote:
> > Tegan Dowling said...
> > > On 3/24/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's even less obvious that something as small as a single leading
> space is the problem. When
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0100, marc wrote:
> Tegan Dowling said...
> > On 3/24/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I fail to understand the difficulty
> > > it seems to cause; I haven't encountered anyone who couldn't deal with
> > > the syntax once understood - a one sentence, one
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Based on a number of recent events, I'm thinking of switching the PmWiki
default in 2.2.0 so that leading whitespace characters no longer produce
preformatted text.
I think that's a good choice, but the transition will probably be tricky.
The sit
On 3/25/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With respect, dumbing down features to meet the inability of folk to
> adapt is not a road that I wish to travel.
To be honest, I've never understood the reason for the leading space
rule. I would much rather have a special markup or a config value
th
Tegan Dowling said...
> On 3/24/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I fail to understand the difficulty
> > it seems to cause; I haven't encountered anyone who couldn't deal with
> > the syntax once understood - a one sentence, one time thing - no
> > different to '' for emphasis, etc.
> >
> >
On 3/24/07, marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fail to understand the difficulty
> it seems to cause; I haven't encountered anyone who couldn't deal with
> the syntax once understood - a one sentence, one time thing - no
> different to '' for emphasis, etc.
>
> Surely, if you don't want the behav
On 3/24/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trusted? Alas, "overflow: auto;" has never been trustworthy for me --
> it has afew quirks with it. At least under Firefox 1.5.0.9/Linux and
> Firefox 2.0/Linux, using overflow:auto causes the text to the right
> to be chopped off (with
Patrick R. Michaud said...
> Based on a number of recent events, I'm thinking of switching the
> PmWiki default in 2.2.0 so that leading whitespace characters
> no longer produce preformatted text. It would of course be
> available as an option for those who want it, or for those
> who have sites
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:49:08PM -0400, Ben Wilson wrote:
> In terms of preventing over-long lines, I would recommend the trusted
> "overflow: auto;" CSS, which creates a scroll bar when the text width
> exceeds the block width.
>
> pre { overflow: auto; }
Trusted? Alas, "overflow: auto;" has
I'm not a markup guy, so if that makes sense, go for
it.
One question though, on top of having the option to
disable it, how hard would it be to write a converter
from the old style to whatever replaces it? It's one
thing to turn off a new feature for a while, but
eventually sites will have to
I for one like this move. I like using Markdown markup so I authored a
recipe that allows integration of the two syntaxes (usually by
converting Markdown to PmWiki before PmWiki processes. It's been a few
moons, but I recall having to short circuit the leading-whitespace
logic so I could get Markdo
Based on a number of recent events, I'm thinking of switching the
PmWiki default in 2.2.0 so that leading whitespace characters
no longer produce preformatted text. It would of course be
available as an option for those who want it, or for those
who have sites that have a lot of preformatted text
40 matches
Mail list logo
