Hi Murray, having to edit wiki-pages in order to comply with the new markup is indeed a strong hint to not push newly proposed markup, or at least make it optional. On this particular case however, old versions of the markup would render "incorrect" text, that is, the expected and the actual output diverge enough that most probably the proposed syntax isn't currently used; hence, in this particular case, I'm more inclined to not make it optional.
Re-reading my first e-mail, it seems that I don't prefer optional markup at all, but that was poorly expressed, I was thinking only on the new proposed markup, not as a general rule. Of course, if the proposed markup breaks existing installations, I'd be a big no-no of bringing it in, or at least, as you say, make it optional (and defaulted to not activating it). Anything subject to break existing markup should be optional and deactivated by default (IMO), or even published as another MarkupParser, but again, in this particular case I'm not thinking that existing markup would need to be rewritten. Hope I make more sense now.. cheers, juan pablo On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:11 AM Murray Altheim <murra...@altheim.com> wrote: > Hi Juan Pablo, > > I think this really comes down to a policy decision, insofar as in the > history > of this project we've come upon similar decisions, but to my memory I can't > think of how we've resolved them. > > So yes, we can always recommend implementers/installers read the change > logs > and documentation, but if someone has a existing installation of wiki pages > that this proposal would be in conflict with, that would put that site into > a situation where they'd likely not be able to ever upgrade to the next > version of JSPWiki unless they could somehow edit all those pages, which in > practicality means (probably) never. The alternative would be to be able to > disable this new feature. > > So I'm happy to amend my original proposal, which is to have this as an > option, but the default is enabled. That way, anyone in the situation where > a syntax change would create conflicts they could at least upgrade to the > latest version of JSPWiki and simply disable the feature. > > Would that be too onerous? (Frankly, obviously, I have no idea if there are > any users out there where this would be a conflict, but I'm suggesting a > policy decision where any new syntax features/changes would have an enable/ > disable flag rather than simply be included). > > Cheers, > > Murray > > > Hi, > > > > I'd prefer not to have optional markup, as it would lead to more complex > > setups / things to have in mind when > > setting up JSPWiki. Also we're in the middle of transitioning to 2.11 so > > breaking changes should be expected, > > as long as their clearly depicted on the NewIn.. page. > > > > Also, in this particular case the alternative feels cumbersome, so it > > looks > > to me as a welcome addition, and > > is likely to break not too much wikipages (%%% not being a typical text > > for > > a wiki page). Again, in this case, > > people upgrading should check the NewIn.. page for all kinds of changes. > > In > > any case, that's my opinion only, > > what do you people think? > > > > best regards, > > juan pablo > > ........................................................................... > Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com> = = === > http://www.altheim.com/murray/ === > === > = = === > In the evening > The rice leaves in the garden > Rustle in the autumn wind > That blows through my reed hut. > -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu > > > >
