[WMS] Re: Pre-cursor to wiki markup standard

  • From: "Andrew Premdas" <Andrew.Premdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <wiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:34:07 +0100


Thanks for the point about overlapping terms. I still think they overlap,
because they provide the same functionality, although perhaps they came from
a different historical background. Whilst claiming no expertise in the
history of all this, italic, bold and underline have been used as emphasis
in printed text systems for ages and I suspect em was introduced later to
make things less media specific. Really page authors should be just thinking
I want this bit of content to be emphasized. Whilst readers should determine
how this is emphasis is output. Whilst levels of emphasis might be useful,
duplicated terms are less so. However history may dictate that we have to
put up with these things.

Personally I think there should be no wiki markup for colors as this is
breaking the divide between presentation and content. Certainly authors
should not be thinking I want this bit of text to be 'red' so I'll use 'em'

All best


Andrew Premdas
Student Systems Developer
Manchester University

-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wiki-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mario Salzer
Sent: 07 October 2004 22:29
To: wiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [WMS] Re: Pre-cursor to wiki markup standard

Andrew Premdas wrote:
> By creating a functionality standard first you would have a good place 
> for starting discussions about syntax and markup. This would also 
> provide an opportunity to clean up ambiguous and overlapping terms 
> e.g. emphasis, strong emphasis, bold, italic. Also to determine 
> whether functionality should be included in the core (perhaps large 
> and small text shouldn't be in because they are a type of emphasis).

What should have preceeded this mailing list, was a complete Wiki markup
research. Nobody has currently an overview of what markup variations are in
use and what they are used for (and how often, how well, btw). It was a bit
more difficult than having a graph of WikiEngine descendants and so...

It's a too big task to do this now, the spreadsheet can only partially help
over this. It's a good start however, and eventually allows us to
differentiate a few major markup variations / trees. We also get a limited
overview of what is in use already.

Since we are unlikely to negotiate on any extravagant publishing markup
features, the list of what functionality we need is also rather clear.
MeatBall:WikiMarkupStandard, the spreadsheet, Tiki:RFCWiki give us nice
check lists, of what we should consider to standardize. (Our WikiMarkup is
in use already a while, so one would expect, that the most important stuff
is already there anyhow ;)

But Andrew, I'd like to contradict you in one point. Not all terms that we
use overlap. As I feel we need that distinction, I wish to point out, that
"emphasis" and "italic" are two different things. Nowadays browsers present
it the same - but only per default, and it makes a lot of sense to me to let
users use <i> for italic text, but also provide a special CSS and markup
rule for <em> (for example a slightly red color, instead of adding wiki
markup for hundreds of colors - which not many people would use in the end).
I make this distinction, because I see a big problem coming, with our vote
on the "best" markup for 'italic'. (There is '' and // in use...)


Other related posts: