Hey,
Having a tag implementation next to the current parser function one would be
acceptable. Replacing the parser function by a tag extension is not. So that
would not solve the current problem.
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw
* http://blog.bn2vs.com
* http://wiki.bn2vs.com
Don't panic. Don't be evil. 50 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69
66 65!
--
On 19 July 2010 14:34, Platonides <platoni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not use a tag instead of a parserfunction?
> You could have one point per line, with parameters (which could be
> named) separated by pipes.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
> Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
> _______________________________________________
> Semediawiki-user mailing list
> semediawiki-u...@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
