On Thursday, November 28, 2013 8:14:01 AM UTC-8, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Sorry to dig it up again, but I realise that I hadn't commented on > Stephan's proposed syntax change for block quotes. I like the extension to > handle cite elements but I'm not so sure about changing "<<<" to the > triple-double-quotes thing. So far I've only been deviating from TW Classic > syntax when there is a compelling reason to do so --- I've not even changed > the broken ordering of pretty links. By that policy, I think we should > stick to the classic "<<<" syntax. >
In addition, in TWClassic, tripled double quotes are use as "super quoting" to prevent wikification of content without applying extra styles like CODE or PRE blocks do. Changing the meaning of this syntax for TW5 could cause some confusion for people migrating from TWC to TW5. My two cents on the whole discussion: Block quotes are similar to bullet lists, in that they can have multiple nested levels, but are somewhat different in that block quotes are typically *multi-line* content, while bullet lists are often (but not exclusively) single-line content. I think it would be very useful for block quote syntax to parallel bullet list syntax so that however bullet lists handle multi-line items, that's how block quotes should do it as well. etc. -e <javascript:> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
