--- Comment #12 from MZMcBride <> 2011-01-16 20:21:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> And yes I know there are two ways to make a table ({| and <table>) but that
> doesn't justify adding more.

There are two ways to do almost _any_ markup (that has a wikitext equivalent).
<h2> can be used instead of == ==, {| instead of <table>, ''' and '' instead of
<b> and <i>, and the list goes on and on.

But some formatting (e.g., <sup> and <s>) can _only_ be done in HTML. HTML is
inherently part of wikitext ("wikitext" being "the text inside the <textarea>
in an edit window" in this context). Suggesting that the most common HTML
element (<a>) be banned because it has a wikitext equivalent is crazy. Will we
blacklist <b> and <i> next? Those have some of the oldest wikimarkup
equivalents and surely it's simpler for users to have only one way to make text
bold or italic.

I don't see how breaking things like users copying and pasting HTML into an
edit window makes the software more usable. It just seems to be a huge
inconvenience for a lot of users and given that some HTML is already allowed
(and sometimes required), it makes the entire concept of editing more confusing
to ban an element like <a>.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to