|
|
|
|
|
by pjin
5046 days ago
|
|
Looks a lot like TeX, which is a good thing. In fact this might even be better. I'm tired so I might be missing an obvious weakness but to take the analogy a bit further here are some comparisons between this suggestion and a more TeX-like version. The author's suggestion: {b {i This is in italics and bold.}}
{Henny+Penny We can use google fonts anywhere if we just import them first with the google-font code}
{macro foobar {u {b %s}}}
TeX-like (yes I'm making up the keywords): {\b {\i This is in italics and bold.}}
{\font {Henny+Penny} We can use google fonts anywhere if we just import them first with the google-font code}
{\macro {foobar} {\u {\b #1}}}
I would definitely prefer the first alternative over the TeX-like. The analogy also suggests though that instead of HTML "<br />" you could have a TeX-like atom "\br" instead of "{br}"; saves only one character, but easy to see inside a block of text. |
|
E.g. How do I use relative links? Is {subdir Hello world} a relative link, a font-name, or a new and yet unsupported tag?
Html handles this: <a href='subdir'> versus <font name='subdir'> versus <subdir>...
Oh, and why support font names and colors directly in tags in 2012? He should support class names instead!
Why is "fontname from URL" hardcoded for Google fonts? Why not a generic syntax that handles whatever site you might want to use.
Why support simple macros without any support for formatting numbers and currency? Your server-site language should support this, so why send it to the browser?
Image (pic) elements are missing height/width, so we're back to the relayout flashes that the NCSA_Mosaic browser had whenever it loaded an image.
Exercise for the reader: let your editor remove one } by random. Figure out yourself where it's missing by just reading the source.