Werner LEMBERG wrote: > It's not clear to me why you get such bad formatting results. Partly because it's difficult to strip away the non wiki content from the web page (navigation bar, advertisement on the corner, "feed back" input textarea); Partly because there is no way to specify when this gets printed, how the page header, footer look like. e.g. it's not possible to have a front page with only title of document and author, date, centered in the page. I have to copy content from wiki into OpenOffice and format it there. > IMHO, > it's not a problem of the syntax (neither groff nor TeX do much more) > but rather a bad conversion from Wiki syntax to the printer output. > The convention I used "tikiwiki" only have a few "syntax" for different formats, I think less than a dozen. Compare to what ms package offers, it was just too few. However there is a strong need of using wiki for project document because in an agile development process the software document can be changed anytime by anyone. and frequently a well formated version is needed for print-output for commercial releases. Can we have roff's richness in formatting and layout text on paper, providing high quality print output for the product delivery, while provide high flexibility and co-operation of wiki, without forcing document writers (often not developers) to use a version control software and collaborate by committing instead of just work on the web pages?
I know right-to-left language is not supported. Chinese neither, for the line-break issue. By the way, why being old is a reason to being in-active for new feature requirements (e.g. right-to-left)?
