---- Original Message ----- > From: "David Gerard" <[email protected]>
> On 6 February 2012 21:02, Jay Ashworth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Correct, and it isn't merely investments in learning; there are likely > > investments in wrap-around-the-outside coding which assume access to markup > > as well. Not All Mediawikiae Are Wikipedia. > > Your use of "likely" there turns out to be largely incorrect - one of > the biggest problems with wikitext is that it's all but unparsable by > machines other than the original parser routines in MediaWiki. That > fact was one of the inspirations for this list existing at all: to > come up with a definition of wikitext that could be used by machine > parsers at all. I was around when wikitext-l forked; I know pretty much exactly how unparseable MWtext is. That doesn't preclude external code which *generates* MWtext for injection into wikis. And in fact, IIRC, there are 4 or 5 parser replacements that are between 97 and 99% accurate. Not good enough for Wikipedia, but they'd certainly be good enough for nearly anything else... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [email protected] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 _______________________________________________ Wikitext-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l
