ec2-54-211-127-89.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | ToothyWikiInternals | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic

This is meant to be a central place to document things you can do in a wiki edit box. A manual, of sorts. UseModWiki: TextFormattingRules is not really enough any more because so much has changed and has been added. A simpler overview of the basics is at ToothyWikiInternals/QuickFormatting.

Questions should go to the [FAQ] page.

Older discussion

GRRRRRR!  The HTML would be <EM>italics</EM> and <STRONG>bold</STRONG> (and only that by convention)  Well, at least those work as well.  Guess I can forgive that.  --Vitenka <I> and <B> are travesties!
Hmm.  Well.  Actually, if you specifically want italics or bold themselves, then <I> or <B> would be what you'd use.  I agree that if you want emphasis, then EM or STRONG tags would be what you'd use.  But the paragraph as phrased above is accurate: the HTML to put some text into italics is the I tag, and the HTML to put some text into bold is the B tag.  Whether that's what people should be trying to do is a different matter.  --AlexChurchill, being [pedantic]
Except that <I> and <B> are only present as of some horrible bastardised version of html.  Stay pure!  Emphasise!  --Vitenka
The wiki is not the place for HTML, certainly not for common formatting. HTML is not intuitive to read or write. People find it scary. Admittedly, apostrophes are not intuitive to write either, but at least they are not composed of letters and so are less distracting to read. Part of the goal is that common formatting does not make text in the edit box hard to read. If I wanted the wiki to use HTML, I'd just make a public FTP area. Limited HTML support is present for those that find it more intuitive, but its use shouldn't be pushed on those that don't. I have not meant it to be a general-public-use thing, more a something that gets mentioned in passing in the advanced detailed documentation for those that care. - MoonShadow
PeterTaylor finds long strings of apostrophes a lot worse to read - especially in fonts where ';;' is indistinguishable from ". Such as the default font on the default browser on the machine he uses most.
Could be worse - the default mod wiki has things like seven ' meaning what we have double [ for.  --Vitenka
AlexChurchill suggests that a more readable-in-the-edit-box alternative might be /italics/ and *bold*.  Unfortunately the latter would clash with both list notation and the common *emote* convention.  I think _bold_ would be perverse (people would expect _underline_), although %bold% or $bold$ are possiblities.  But I don't think there's enough problem with the apostrophe-strings to be worth changing things.
*bold* wouldn't clash - bulleted lists look for (beginning of line, star(s), space) whereas *bold* would look for (star, nonwhitespace character, any character(s), nonwhitespace character, star). I would probably retain the stars in the output, and just make the entire lot bold. /italics/, however, unless restricted to being used for single words delimited by whitespace, would clash with URLs, subpages, pseudo-HTML tags and probably other things too. -- MoonShadow
I don't see a clash with emotion - make *emote* into emote (instead of bold) and it stays pretty much the same.  $ would annoy leet people, so that's a good idea too.  --Vitenka
Does anyone find the ' use for bold and italic that annoying?  It seems to work for me.  Please don't use star for anything, as I would be really annoyed to have to nowiki every action/emotion I wrote out and I don't think italics would work as an equivalent - Kazuhiko
I agree with Kazuhiko, I'm afraid. Seven ' might be irritating but two or three is no problem (as long as I can remember which is which :), and less fuss than <i> or <em>. I'd rather keep * free, since I use them to emote, and the feeling is very different from an italicised word - SunKitten
Summarised above discussion in "no action planned" section of ToothyWikiInternals/WikiFeatures. Will shortly summarise the rest of it in HTML/Discussion or some such, then remove this lot unless someone makes a strong argument for keeping it.
Fair enough, I can certainly agree with the intent - so how about a more intuitive < nowiki > ?  --Vitenka (or even just a symbol that becomes square brackets)
Yes, suggestions for non-HTMLized versions of < nowiki > and < pre > are gratefully accepted. Such markup probably needs to contain brackets (something like ((( ... )))?), since it can be multiline and one therefore *really* wants to imply a strong need to remember to close it off. - MoonShadow

ec2-54-211-127-89.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | ToothyWikiInternals | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic
This page is read-only | View other revisions | Recently used referrers
Last edited October 14, 2009 12:46 am (viewing revision 39, which is the newest) (diff)