Re:Why? Because its not the right solution for all
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 22, 2006 06:01 AM
I disagree with your characterization of the header syntax.
It's actually *more* logical than the inverse, because one can only have one top level- the highest level beyond which one can not ascend. This maps naturally on = FOO =; if one wants to split the article into more than one piece, then == FOO ==; if more nesting is desired, one can keep adding =s indefinitely. (More abstractly, the base case chosen for the inverse of MediaWiki syntax is poorly chosen since the changes in syntax don't mirror the changes in semantics.)
On the other hand, what if your ultimate top level header was ==== FOO ==== (or whatever DocuWiki sets it at)? What happens when you want to go down to a fourth level? Do you simply write = FOO =? Very well then: how does one then express going down to a fifth level? FOO? (and so on). Yeah right.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Why? Because its not the right solution for all
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 22, 2006 06:01 AMIt's actually *more* logical than the inverse, because one can only have one top level- the highest level beyond which one can not ascend. This maps naturally on = FOO =; if one wants to split the article into more than one piece, then == FOO ==; if more nesting is desired, one can keep adding =s indefinitely. (More abstractly, the base case chosen for the inverse of MediaWiki syntax is poorly chosen since the changes in syntax don't mirror the changes in semantics.)
On the other hand, what if your ultimate top level header was ==== FOO ==== (or whatever DocuWiki sets it at)? What happens when you want to go down to a fourth level? Do you simply write = FOO =? Very well then: how does one then express going down to a fifth level? FOO? (and so on). Yeah right.
#