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 VE/Parsoid/Flow > > complex suffers from scope mismatch. As a vehicle for delivering a WYSIWYG > > 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 have > informal guides which omit most of the interesting corner cases, like, say, > priority between conflicting markup. Take a look at > http://spec.commonmark.org/ to see what a precise specification for a *much > simpler* markup language would look like. As you read through the cases in > 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. Rupert _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
