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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit

Reply via email to