Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-15 11:46 (-0500): > = heading level 1 > == heading level 2 > =begin list I see this going wrong with =heading level 1 already. I like the numbers in =headN too, by the way, as it makes inconsistencies easier to spot. > And then replaced [...] and [=...] and /.../ and *...* with their more > POD-like: L[...], C[...], I[...] and B[...] with a bare [foo] working as > a "I have no idea what I'm linking to, but do the right thing" sort of > wikiness, where L[...] is a more structured, POD-like link. For example: L[] C[] I[] B[] are all hard to read. With <>, the weight is evenly distributed, while with [], the weight is on the outside, next to that capital letter that is just as large. Visual comparison: L[] C[] I[] B[] # I is worst L<> C<> I<> B<> So if [] is going to be used, may I suggest using lc letters with it then? l[] c[] i[] b[] L[] C[] I[] B[] L<> C<> I<> B<> Still not great, but better IMO. Why are <> bad, by the way? Can't we just change the meaning to be qq-like, that is: with nested content? That means only for non-unicode >><< you need extra angle brackets. Or maybe we introduce [] as an alternative for <>. Also, how is C[@*INC[-1]] parsed? # I find this very hard to parse, # visually Likewise, %?INC{something}? Two possible sources of inspiration for the whole documentation thing: * Text::MetaMarkup * Paragraphs CAN begin with a block level html tag, "h1: heading" * Inline HTML tags can be used as "{b:bold}" * Paragraph starting with * is a list * Paragraph starting with # is comment * Verbatim paragraphs simply start with "pre:" * No support for tables yet * PodTables * See http://pugs.kwiki.org/?PodTables Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.htmlThread Previous