I have recently started editing files with a '.wiki' extension, and
rather than getting the 'wikipedia' filetype, they pick up the
'flexwiki' type. That's not the problem.
The problem is that the 'flexwiki' filetype handler sets "bomb",
resulting in extra characters at the front of my utf8 files
On 29 апр, 10:48, ron wrote:
> I have recently started editing files with a '.wiki' extension, and
> rather than getting the 'wikipedia' filetype, they pick up the
> 'flexwiki' type. That's not the problem.
>
> The problem is that the 'flexwiki' filetype handler sets "bomb",
> resulting in extra
On 29/04/10 16:55, Maxim Kim wrote:
On 29 апр, 10:48, ron wrote:
I have recently started editing files with a '.wiki' extension, and
rather than getting the 'wikipedia' filetype, they pick up the
'flexwiki' type. That's not the problem.
The problem is that the 'flexwiki' filetype handler set
On 30 апр, 06:35, Tony Mechelynck
wrote:
> On 29/04/10 16:55, Maxim Kim wrote:
> > I had the very same problem with it.
> > In my plugin I just do
>
> > augroup filetypedetect
> > " clear FlexWiki's stuff
> > au! * *.wiki
> > augroup end
>
> A simpler solution would be to create a script
>
Le Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:35:30 +0200, Tony Mechelynck a écrit dans le
message <4bda41f2.4030...@gmail.com> :
> BTW, I usually have 'bomb' set myself; I clear it for files (such as
> anything starting with #! on its first line) which will be handled by
> software that doesn't know about the BOM. (A
Ron Aaron wrote:
> I have recently started editing files with a '.wiki' extension, and
> rather than getting the 'wikipedia' filetype, they pick up the
> 'flexwiki' type. That's not the problem.
>
> The problem is that the 'flexwiki' filetype handler sets "bomb",
> resulting in extra character
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > Scanning the ftplugins, it seems 'flexwiki' is the only one which sets
> > 'bomb'. Is it an ok thing for it to do? Also, why is "flexwiki" the
> > handler, when wikipedia is probably the most widely used wiki? But
> > that's a quibble.
George V. Reilly wrote:
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > > Scanning the ftplugins, it seems 'flexwiki' is the only one which sets
> > > 'bomb'. Is it an ok thing for it to do? Also, why is "flexwiki" the
> > > handler, when wikipedia is probably the most widely u
On 02-May-2010 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> Ron Aaron wrote:
>
> > I have recently started editing files with a '.wiki' extension, and
> > rather than getting the 'wikipedia' filetype, they pick up the
> > 'flexwiki' type. That's not the problem.
> >
> > The problem is that the 'flexwiki' filety
On Monday 03 May 2010 23:12:42 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> What I did now is to disable recognizing .wiki files as flexwiki.
> Someone still using these files can re-enable it when needed.
>
> I can't find another file format that uses the .wiki extension.
> Mediawiki uses .mw.
It's common to use th
Ron Aaron wrote:
> On Monday 03 May 2010 23:12:42 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > What I did now is to disable recognizing .wiki files as flexwiki.
> > Someone still using these files can re-enable it when needed.
> >
> > I can't find another file format that uses the .wiki extension.
> > Mediawiki
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 21:52:54 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> There is no MediaWiki syntax file.
Sorry, it's called Wikipedia.
--
Sending me something private?
Use my GPG public key: AD29415D
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Ron Aaron wrote:
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 21:52:54 Bram Moolenaar wrote:
There is no MediaWiki syntax file.
Sorry, it's called Wikipedia.
Hello!
Ron, Bram was wanting a Wikipedia syntax file. I can't vouch for it,
but perhaps you mean the one in:
http://www.vim.org/script
On May 4, 11:57 pm, Charles Campbell
wrote:
> Ron, Bram was wanting a Wikipedia syntax file. I can't vouch for it,
> but perhaps you mean the one in:
>
> http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1787
I think that's the one I use, yes.
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" mai
On 03/05/10 23:45, Lech Lorens wrote:
[...]
I might be totally wrong basing my understanding of BOM and character
sets mainly on Wikipedia, but I thought that setting 'bomb' for utf-8
encoded files (which does not pose a risk of misinterpreting the
contents due to endianness difference) didn't ma
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 03/05/10 23:45, Lech Lorens wrote:
> [...]
> > I might be totally wrong basing my understanding of BOM and
> > character sets mainly on Wikipedia, but I thought that setting
> > 'bomb' for utf-8 encoded files (which does not pose a risk of
> > mi
On 27/06/10 21:21, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 03/05/10 23:45, Lech Lorens wrote:
[...]
I might be totally wrong basing my understanding of BOM and
character sets mainly on Wikipedia, but I thought that setting
'bomb' for utf-8 encoded files (which
17 matches
Mail list logo
