Another good rule-of-thumb test for evaluating wiki syntax
designs: how hard is it to self-document?
Every wiki syntax processor in the world winds up with
documentation in the form of a table:
Type This: Get This
*foo* *foo*
etc.
How good does the table look in source form? Are there
cases in which the entry in either column has to be "faked"?
This rule-of-thumb test gets at how clean the quoting rules
are in the syntax and how well the syntax handles "composibility"
(the idea that you can move subtrees around between contexts
fairly liberally).
Be very skeptical of any system that can't handle this case
without embedding raw HTML.
-t
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
