Talk:Lightweight markup language/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparing lightweight and classic markup languages

This page doesn't mention what it is that lightweight markup languages are simpler compared to. This is crucial for deciding what is a "lightweight markup language". The list has, for instance, BBCode, which I wouldn't deem a lightweight language by any measure.

I think lightweight and classic markup languages shouldn't be compared to define the lightweight ones. It would only make the definition more subjective. For example the BBCode article defines the language as a lightweight markup language but I only see it as a rehash of obsolete HTML elements, where the < and > symbols have been replaced by open and close brackets ([ and ]). Moreover defining a markup language as lightweight is very subjective. Some people think the wiki syntax of this encyclopedia is a lightweight markup language, but I only see it as a cryptic markup language where funky characters are used instead of cool XML-like elements. As written in the article : « Another application is for entry in web-based publishing, such as weblogs and wikis, where the input interface is a simple text box. ». It's because of technical limitations that lightweight markup languages appeared. But users would rather use an online WYSIWYG editor backed-up by a XML-based markup language, like XHTML for example. I only posted these remarks to show how inadequate comparing markup language types is. --Goa103 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"It's because of technical limitations that lightweight markup languages appeared." Often this is true, but not always. Many people use plaintext entry to avoid the distractions of formatting (Merlin Mann seems to use MultiMarkdown and TextMate at least partially for this reason). — Brianary (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The term "lightweight" is a misnomer, but then so is much of the English language. What distinguishes these from (x)HTML is the fact that they are easier for relatively non-technical people to use. **Some** of these actually look OK when you are looking at the unrendered plaintext, but that's the subjective part and relatively unimportant in its use as an input-only tool for websites.

Arguing the case for "Notability":

Many people, not just myself and Mr Mann, see this type of technology as important. Such tools enable rich-text-like formatting to be contained right in plain text prose, thereby overcoming the problem of the limited life span of proprietary storage formats - see http://emacspeak.sourceforge.net/publications/colored-paper.html .

Some of these tools can be used to "single source" content, allowing for relatively easy conversion between or automated publishing to multiple presentation and structuring formats, such as DocBook, HTML Help, EPUB/mobi ebooks, LaTeX, PDF etc, whose native workflow toolchains are usually very difficult or at least inconvenient to master. You can see where "lightweight" is also a misnomer when the syntax supports automatic Table of Contents and Index generation, compiling footnotes and citation references, internal cross-referencing with backlinks (AKA "tagging") etc.

Last but not least, such markup is the **only** way that project documentation can be maintained (usually along with the code) in a source/version control system like Subversion, Bazaar etc. Even the plaintext "open" file formats (flavors of XML, LibreOffice etc) use "bracketing" tags like

, and these get all tangled up by diffing tools, which makes efficient merging of doc files impossible.

I hope that this topic **as a category** is kept, for it is more notable than its individual members, and they certainly deserve inclusion as well. Sorry I don't have an account here, but I can be contacted at hansbkk@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.103.127 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi srinivasan nayakar 10:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasan nayakar (talk • contribs)

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was MERGE into Lightweight markup language.

Previously, there was a merge proposal ongoing since July 2007 regarding Comparison of lightweight markup languages and List of lightweight markup languages, but little discussion ever took place and no consensus was reached. I propose instead that both of those articles be merged into this article to create a larger, more robust article that gives a more complete and encyclopedic view of lightweight markup languages. —Animated Cascade talk 08:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this is not a controversial merge, I am going to be bold and perform the merge without waiting further for debate. —Animated Cascade talk 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wikitext, mediawiki

on the list it is called wikitext, in the tables it is called mediawiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.26.103 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikitext is a generic term, in effect a synonym for the syntaxes enabled by the tools discussed here. MediaWiki is software that uses a specific implementation of that type of syntax, as do PMwiki, DokuWiki, MoinMoin etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.103.127 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

More comparisons

Would it be an idea to add a column comparing support for strikeout? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.197.58 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A full feature-specific matrix would be unmanageably large. Too bad Wikipedia doesn't support this sort of comparison: http://www.wikimatrix.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.103.127 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Recursive reference to wikipedia

It'd be nice to mention that wikipedia itself it using a lightweight markup and then mention which one it is. Is it mediawiki? Mediawiki with hacks? etc. If one can answer this, i'd be happy to write it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.100.238 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The software platform MediaWiki, which anyone can use, has its own (some would say ideosyncratic) markup syntax. Wikipedia uses that software and therefore its syntax - I'm not aware of any special modification specific to this site. The linkword "MediaWiki" redirects to WikiPedia, so I linked directly to the canonical "MediaWiki namespace". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.103.127 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

group by relevance

The list is great, but it'd be even greater if it were in some way grouped by relative relevance so as to be able to distinguish, e.g., SPIP and Markdown regarding the probability one would encounter them. Or something! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.197 (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Who scribbled the notability question? Argue against notability!

  • I think the article is notable – because I want the article, and I'm the current center of the universe (narcissist principle AKA egocentric cosmology). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See my notes above on the use of some of these toolsets beyond the syntax issue and wiki formatting on websites. IMO it is a very important category, especially for long-term archiving of the written word and in single-source publishing to a variety of what we now call ebook formats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.103.127 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete link

In the external links section, I marked a link as obsolete. Humane Text Formats - A comparison : talks about old variant, like when it says Markdown provides no tables. By the way, is there a standard Wiki template to mark a reference as obsolete ? --Hibou57 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Different comparison tables for inline formats

Prefixes and suffixes
Language ' '' ''' * ** _ __ / // ~ ~~ = @ @@ ` `` Infix
AsciiDoc emph No No bold bold emph No No No No No No No No code No Partial
Creole No No No No bold No No No emph No No No No No No No No
Deplate No code No No No No emph No No No No No No No No No No
Markdown No No No emph bold emph bold No No No No No No No code No No
MediaWiki No emph bold No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
Org-mode No No No bold No ul No emph No verb No code No No No No No
PmWiki No emph bold No No No No No No No No No No code No No No
rST No No No emph bold No No No No No No No No No No code No
Setext No No No No bold ul No No No emph No No No No No No Partial
Textile No No No strong bold emph italic No No No No No code No No No No
Texy No No No emph bold No No No emph No No No No No code No No
txt2tags No No No No bold No ul No emph No No No No No No code No

or

Italic and emphasized syntax
Languages Emphasis Italic style Underlined text
AsciiDoc 'italic text'
MediaWiki, PmWiki ''italic text''
Markdown, rST, Texy *italic text*
AsciiDoc, Markdown _italic text_
Textile _emphasized text_ __italic text__
Deplate __italic text__
Org-mode /italic text/ _underlined_
Creole, Texy //italic text//
txt2tags __underlined text__
Setext ~italic text~ _underlined_text_
Bold and strong syntax
Languages Strong emphasis Bold face
AsciiDoc, Org-mode *bold text*
Creole, Markdown, rST, Setext, Texy, txt2tags **bold text**
AsciiDoc **b**old t**ex**t
Textile *strong text* **bold text**
Markdown __bold text__
MediaWiki, PmWiki '''bold text'''
Monospaced and code syntax
Languages Code Verbatim Monospaced font
AsciiDoc +teletype text+
Org-mode =code text= ~verbatim text~
AsciiDoc, Markdown, Texy `teletype text`
rST, txt2tags ``teletype text``
Deplate ''teletype text''
Textile @teletype text@
PmWiki @@teletype text@@
Creole ##teletype text##
Creole {{{verbatim text}}}

— Christoph Päper 08:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lightweight markup language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lightweight_markup_language/Archive_1&oldid=993159976"