[emacs-wiki-discuss] Re: Planner and Muse

[Sacha Chua]

TC <address@hidden> writes:

>> Muse is the next stage in emacs-wiki's evolution...
> Maybe I'm reading to much into the word "next", and at the risk of
> trying to mess with the shoelaces of the original author of
> emacs-wiki, is the above really true?

muse is the way emacs-wiki should probably be. It carries the markup
idea further and does fancier things with it, like the nested
directories and multiple publishing things that people have been
asking for on this list. Working with emacs-wiki, I miss a number of
things from muse, like easy-to-use page directives. Hacking emacs-wiki
into something that resembles muse more is kinda pointless, as, well,
muse is already muse. <grin> (That said, I steal ideas from muse on
occasion.)

However, that doesn't mean emacs-wiki will just die. =) emacs-wiki
syntax is _slightly_ different from muse (re: lists), although the
changes can be kludged. I should revive planner-muse and start using
it again, although I suspect I need to write muse-wikiwords first to
minimize the impact of the switch. Ideally, you'll be able to choose
between planner-emacs-wiki and planner-muse backends. Eventually muse
might be the main backend.

I use muse for quick-and-dirty single-page wiki files because I
haven't quite figured out muse-projects yet. <sheepish grin>

> (No doubt the whole lot will be smooshed into one all-singing
> all-dancing planner fest by the indomitable Sacha :-) ) [2]

All-singing, all-dancing planner fest. That sounds good. <impish grin>

> [1] Who *is* the current blessed owner? John's site suggests Damien.
> The link to Damien, redirects to Mark. And Mark's page says it's
> Sacha.

I am the current maintainer of emacs-wiki. I took over with johnw's
blessing on February 29, 2004. Damien was the previous maintainer, but
he got very busy, so he handed it over to Mark, who was more
comfortable with me maintaining it than maintaining it himself.

Can people update their pages? =)

> [2] Never can be sure, can you, if the closing parens of a smiley
> that is itself used *within* parens, should double up as the closing
> parens of the main parens? (If you see what I mean :-) )

I don't use it as the closing parenthesis because that could lead to
ambiguous parsing and because I'm finicky about matching parentheses
logically. :-) (or =) in my case) is a single token.

-- 
Sacha Chua <address@hidden> - Ateneo CS faculty geekette
interests: emacs, gnu/linux, making computer science education fun
http://sacha.free.net.ph/ - PGP Key ID: 0xE7FDF77C