How to beat minimal wiki features out of redcloth?


#1

Rubies:

I always see “redcloth” everywhere - a textile implementation for Ruby.
So I try
to use it.

Firstly, my code has some

  • tags and whatnot. This command line
    passed them
    through without decorating them:

    ruby -e "require ‘rubygems’; require ‘redcloth’; puts
    RedCloth.new(File.read(‘README’)).to_html " > doc.html

    Yes, it’s RedCloth 4.1.9.

    I sort of expected <li> instead of

  • . (I am aware that many
    wiki
    markups cheat and let the user author HTML directly…)

    Next, some wikis use ==header== notation. redcloth took out the ==
    marks, and
    gave me just

    header

    Next, I have an indented code sample. Ward’s Wiki (and my old wikis)
    could
    automatically put a

     tag around code samples. Nope.
    

    Next, I thought markuppers should generally strew put class=‘thang’
    attributes
    around, so a CSS can color them all up. Nope.

    Please don’t tell me to Google for this - I will only get blog after
    blog
    gushing about how awesome redcloth is. I’d rather hear either how to get
    these
    minimal features out of redcloth - without DIY

     tags and such that
    would
    totally defeat the purpose - or hear a suggestion for a better wiki
    markup library!

  • #2

    Please don’t tell me to Google for this - I will only get blog after
    blog gushing about how awesome redcloth is. I’d rather hear either how
    to get these minimal features out of redcloth - without DIY

     tags
    and such that would totally defeat the purpose - or hear a suggestion
    for a better wiki markup library!

    You mean like rdoc? (-:


    #3

    On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Phlip removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

    Firstly, my code has some

  • tags and whatnot. This command line passed
    them through without decorating them:

    ruby -e "require ‘rubygems’; require ‘redcloth’; puts
    RedCloth.new(File.read(‘README’)).to_html " > doc.html

  • That’s expected.

    I sort of expected <li> instead of

  • . (I am aware that many wiki
    markups cheat and let the user author HTML directly…)
  • You shouldn’t expect that out of Textile. I think you may have a
    misapprehension of what Textile is meant to do. It’s meant to make it
    easy to write a document that reads well in raw text but also can
    “compile” to nice HTML that has the same semantic meaning (more or
    less) than the plain text input.

    So, don’t expect it to behave like a wiki markup language. It’s not,
    and that’s not the point of it.

    Next, some wikis use ==header== notation. redcloth took out the == marks,
    and gave me just

    header

    It is strange that it took out the ==, but they’re not Textile markup
    and wouldn’t do anything. If you want a second-level header, use “h2.
    Header”

    Next, I have an indented code sample. Ward’s Wiki (and my old wikis) could
    automatically put a

     tag around code samples. Nope.
    

    Next, I thought markuppers should generally strew put class=‘thang’
    attributes around, so a CSS can color them all up. Nope.

    Again, not features of Textile.

    Please don’t tell me to Google for this - I will only get blog after blog
    gushing about how awesome redcloth is. I’d rather hear either how to get
    these minimal features out of redcloth - without DIY

     tags and such
    that would totally defeat the purpose - or hear a suggestion for a better
    wiki markup library!

    Instead, allow me to google it for you and provide links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_(markup_language) – this should
    give you the background on Textile and includes links to references
    and implementations, so you can get a better idea of what it is (and
    is not) for.

    http://hobix.com/textile/ – _why’s reference. He was originally
    responsible for redcloth.

    http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ – an alternative to
    Textile that may behave somewhat closer to what you expect. BlueCloth
    handles this one, as do a few other libraries I’m not familiar with

    There are also some wiki-specific markup languages implemented in
    Ruby, but I’ve never used any of them. A search for ruby wiki should
    come up with something, though you may have to dig through wiki app
    code to figure out what they’re using.

    Ben


    #4

    Ben B. wrote:

    http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ – an alternative to
    Textile that may behave somewhat closer to what you expect. BlueCloth
    handles this one, as do a few other libraries I’m not familiar with

    maruku is one of those libs and it adds some features such as tables and
    footnotes. Does have a few bugs, but what doesn’t.


    #5

    Joel VanderWerf wrote:

    Ben B. wrote:

    http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ – an alternative to
    Textile that may behave somewhat closer to what you expect. BlueCloth
    handles this one, as do a few other libraries I’m not familiar with

    maruku is one of those libs and it adds some features such as tables
    and footnotes. Does have a few bugs, but what doesn’t.

    Those aren’t additions. Redcloth certainly has tables and footnotes. I
    use them all the time.

    Kevin, you need to study up on Textile just a bit. It isn’t tough.

    t.

    Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
    Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
    << removed_email_address@domain.invalid >> (email)
    << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
    << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
    

    #6

    Tom C. wrote:

    Kevin, you need to study up on Textile just a bit. It isn’t tough.

    That was me… I’m more shocked at the blogosphere than stuck with
    Textile (-;


    #7

    On Apr 5, 2009, at 09:49, Phlip wrote:

    Please don’t tell me to Google for this - I will only get blog
    after blog gushing about how awesome redcloth is. I’d rather hear
    either how to get these minimal features out of redcloth - without
    DIY

     tags and such that would totally defeat the purpose - or
    hear a suggestion for a better wiki markup library!

    You mean like rdoc? (-:

    http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2008/02/14/an-rdoc-wiki

    http://segment7.net/projects/ruby/snippets/rdoc_wiki.rb (only 200
    lines!)