Re: [MediaWiki] Markdown Syntax usage

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.


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
>> < <>> 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]

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 14:08:26 UTC