Re: [MediaWiki] Markdown Syntax usage

I agree that a client-side (or pre-database-side) solution is probably
best, but I agree that it's risky for exactly the reason Andrew points out.
Do people know of any good converters that we could look at?

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Rowls <eternicode@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it can be done completely client-side (it's just parsing and
> translating text content), but a hybrid approach (have the server translate
> for an ajax request, or something) may be more stable.
>
> But I'm thinking this is a bit risky.
>
> In order to allow a client-side option of editing articles via markdown,
> you would need a script(s) that was capable of translating *both*
> wiki-to-markdown (ie, DB to interface) *and* markdown-to-wiki (ie, user
> input to DB).  If there is any discrepancy (read: bugs) between the two
> translations, you'll get content morphing and potentially content lost in
> translation.
>
> Wiki and markdown are simple enough that this may not be a concern, but I
> thought I'd bring it up.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 10/31/2012 05:58 AM, Jonathan Garbee wrote:
>
>> Paul mentioned during the teleconference this week that it could be
>> done client side.  I don't think it can completely be done there but
>> I do think that there is a way to get it done without any extra
>> confusion.  It would basically allow editors to edit in Markdown but
>> the information saved in the DB would remain MediaWiki markup.
>>
>> I don't have the time to write up the idea now, but when I do I will
>> post it to this ML.
>>
>> -Garbee
>>
>> On 10/29/2012 2:18 PM, David Bradbury wrote:
>>
>>> I agree. The last thing I think we want when it comes down to
>>> maintaining articles is having multiple syntaxes interweaved within
>>> the same article. Heck, even if mixing syntaxes weren't allowed,
>>> having to switch between using different markup languages when
>>> editing different articles would be annoying - Both for regular
>>> users and new users.
>>>
>>> I would be fine with converting to Markdown if needed, but whatever
>>> the final syntax is, it needs to be consistent.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Jonathan Garbee
>>> <jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bug 19692 [1] is a request for Markdown Syntax to be added as an
>>> option for editing pages.
>>>
>>> I personally don't see where this would come in handy unless we
>>> started to use markdown as the primary syntax.  This would just add
>>> one more way to do content which would just add to confusion on
>>> markup.
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks, -Garbee
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19692<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19692>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>