[samuell]

My spontaneous reaction is: Why don't use the existing MediaWiki syntax? It has gone through the test of years (decades?) of real-life needs, has support for (latex) formulae, everything you might need around images and references etc, one of the most powerful template systems I've ever seen, and the list goes on and on.

Additionally there is a very stable, performant and flexible reference implementation implemented as a web app (mediawiki) with excellent import/export in XML format (and the list goes on ...), versioning with syntax-highlighted diff, etc etc etc.

What have I missed? :)

[duskwuff]

MediaWiki syntax is incredibly grody ('''bold''' / ''italic'', tables, template logic, etc), and has exactly one implementation in common usage (MediaWiki itself -- written in PHP, and horribly convoluted), and has no formal specification. The diff feature you're referencing as a "syntax-highlighted diff" is a simple diff of the source -- it's entirely ignorant of formatting, and the XML export is similarly just an export of the raw source.

Nobody likes MediaWiki syntax, not even its own users. It's awful. The only reason it's still used at Wikipedia is because there's too much content to reasonably convert.