On Jul 7, 2010, at 3:47 PM, mdipierro wrote: > I do not have a strong opposition and I see the advantages in terms of > notation but I have two problems:
I'm tied up today, so just a quick note. I understand and generally agree with your caveats. I have a couple of thoughts on the subject that I'll come back with. > > The page:slug notation is handled by plugin_wiki, not by markmin. > markmin just treats url, #anchor, url#anchor, page:slug all in the > same way. plugin_wiki replaces the page:.. with /app/plugin_wiki/ > page/.... after markmin has done its job. > This decoupling was intentional to allow markmin to work without > web2py and without plugin_wiki conventions. > Your first suggestion would introduce coupling. Moreover it would > provide a shortcut that encourage users to display the slug as text of > the link. I am not convinced this is a good idea. > > Massimo > > On 7 Lug, 17:24, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On Jul 7, 2010, at 3:14 PM, mdipierro wrote: >> >> >> >>> Right now you can do links with >> >>> url >>> [[name url]] >>> [[name #anchor]] >>> [[name url#anchor]] >>> [[name page:slug]] >> >>> and define an anchor with >> >>> [[anchor]] >> >>> If I understand your suggestions: >>> 1) also allow >>> [[url]] >>> [[url#anchor]] >>> [[#anchor]] >>> [[page:slug]] >>> to allow un-named links. Q: how can a link not have a name? >> >> In your notation, I was thinking: >> >> [[slug]] would imply [[slug page:slug]] >> >> 'slug' would be used verbatim as the name, and with slug-encoding as the >> slug. >> >> A link would always have a name; it would just be implicit. That's the >> Mediawiki convention, though they use a vertical bar to separate an optional >> name from the slug. >> >> >> >>> 2) use [[=anchor]] to define an anchor to avoid conflict with 1. >> >>> if we do 1, we must do 2 but I would prefer [[!anchor]] then. >> >> Sure. >> >> Or [name:anchor], which corresponds to the html that it generates.
