Le 03/04/2011 16:39, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:29:33 +0200 Enrico Trögerenrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:02:07 +0200, Colomban wrote:
Le 03/04/2011 14:56, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 00:20:06 +0200, Frank wrote: [...]
To enforce the decision a bit, are there any objections in using DokuWiki for wiki.geany.org with the MarkDown and/or reStructuredText plugins?
I don't know MarkDown (well, never used it, I saw some files using it), but I'd be fine with ReST. Would this format(s) be the only one(s) available or would it be optional? I don't think having pages in 2 different formats is a good idea, but if it's transparent (e.g. we can edit any page using the one we prefer) I second this :)
Nah, one page has one format. If a page is written in ReST you can't edit in MarkDown syntax or DokuWiki's syntax and vice versa.
I agree that if pages are written in different markup languages this is quite confusing. We could maybe say: everything has to be written in reStructuredText.
Though in some cases it might better to use DokuWiki's syntax instead of reStructuredText. One example might be to show some code examples which can DokuWiki highlight out of the box, e.g.
<code C> int my_fancy_function(char arg1) { /* I do very fancy things */ int a =0; int b = a;
return b;}
</code>
In reStructuredText this isn't possible, without manually patching, AFAIK. There you have only a block with the code.
So, in the end, I personally, would say we allow both syntax variants, accepting that it is a bit confusing. The good thing is, you quickly see what syntax a page is in when you are editing it because all reStructuredText pages are enclosed by <rst> tags.
Through away the rst stuff and use DokuWiki syntax. Simple, fast and consistent solution for the wiki.
Yeah, if it's not a problem for some users not to use the same thing than Geany use for it's own doc (why Wiki user would even know? :D) I think it's definitely cleaner.
Cheers, Colomban