On Nov 9, 2016 20:26, "C. Scott Ananian" <canan...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'm going to take the bait and respond in part, to defend the teams and
> projects I work with:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > they are summarised by the four words
> >  *under-ambitious,
> > under-resourced, under-managed and under-performing*. The
> > complex suffers from scope mismatch. As a vehicle for delivering a
> > editor and discussion board it is over-complex,
> I'll stop here.  I think it is poorly understood in the community how
> complex wikitext markup has been allowed to grow over the decades it has
> been under development.  There *is no specification for wikitext*.  We
> informal guides which omit most of the interesting corner cases, like,
> priority between conflicting markup.  Take a look at
> http://spec.commonmark.org/ to see what a precise specification for a
> simpler* markup language would look like.  As you read through the cases
> that spec, consider that if you translated most of the examples into
> wikitext, *literally no one knows what the expected output would be*.  The

To make the long story short I would really love and support any well
specified markup. If it is only for a part of the content and there is a
note on top which syntax the text follows I d love it too.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to