On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Jeff Hammel<jham...@openplans.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:36:49PM +0200, Eirik Schwenke wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Noah Kantrowitz skrev 04. juni 2009 22:13: >> > Link to the last discussion on this (or at least one of the last) >> > http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev/browse_thread/thread/f79a1cbb894fe079/8e7d047d0c9fcf16 >> > >> > --Noah >> >> Thanks for the link -- didn't think to include it -- my questions re >> syntax was partly motivated by the points made in that thread. I'd be >> very interested to hear some more detailed views on ReST vs wiki markup >> - -- right now I see two points in favour of the wiki markup: >> >> 1) It's what a great number of trac users already know >> 2) Existing trac macros already integrated with the trac >> wiki processor. >>
(Besides) IMHO I also like Trac syntax because : - It's extensible (macros + processors) - It's more close to what humans have in mind when they write something (yes ! the users mental model do care :)) e.g. TracLinks - Productivity (one line generates one million :P) - The only thing I like about ReST is the way it handles links. I mean, I write the link target just once and thereinafter I dont need to repeat the link URL anymore. OTOH using Trac wiki syntax I need to write [<url> text] everywhere I need to insert a link to some location. That's the only thing that makes me waste my time (and therefore I'm not comfortable with ...) but I can live with that . BTW this is also why links are frequently missing while using ReST, but also why its relatively simple to fix it IMHO . but all this can also raise a number of incompatibilities | «dont know what to do» situations for transformations (e.g. to obtain HTML, PDF, ...) | every body is doing it a different way. So that's hardly against standards, but it is really powerful. In fact I even use Trac wiki syntax to write my blog posts (Blogger). In the end, (in this case) the only thing that matters is HTML ;) >> Christian further mentions: "(Trac has) Much improved table markup (the >> reST table markup is unbearable)". >> [...] >> I agree the trac simple syntax is easier than the rest simple syntax, >> but I think "unreadable" is a bit strong ? >> [...] > > I've come to the conclusion than doing any sort of complicated table with any > markdown language is just horrible. Oh yes ! you 'r right. -- Regards, Olemis. Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article: ¡ Bienvenido OpenSolaris 2009.06 ! - http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/simelo-es/~3/UY8IF3M3Alw/bienvenido-opensolaris-200906.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Users" group. To post to this group, send email to trac-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to trac-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
