This is an interesting issue. On the one hand we have markup for wikitext styling using, for instance, the @@ syntax. On the other hand one inevitably hits a contradiction in Markup systems that are meant to be human readable. That to get complex styling is not sane through "Markup", as Jermolene put it well recently: *that would take us back to the same level of complexity as HTML itself. *
This is precisely why I'm as much interested in styling for specific Document Types as in generic markup. Markup is a blunt instrument for specifics IMO. Document types provide a layout that is ITSELF the TEMPLATE for format. This allows sophisticated styling without any explicit markup at all. I slightly exaggerate. But not much. Joe Armstrong wrote: > > The problem(s) I want to solve are "make the output beautiful" > and "make the output programmatically" when this makes sence > > TW seems a pretty good compromise at these - For beautiful output > I'd have to turn TW in LaTeX of something - but I'll cross one > bridge at a time. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f14591a6-f08d-482e-a80e-f10953d57171%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
