Talk:Textile (markup language)

What about other markup systems, don't we want to list these as well. What about structured text? Bold text Italic text you can also download files from your file app on your home screen

color names link
--2601:7:4300:7A5:887:2D82:8727:16B9 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC) ℳ↔

Shouldn't we link to the web colors article rather than http://www.w3schools.com/HTML/html_colornames.asp?

--Das-g (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

too much on syntax examples
The bulk of this page is given over to syntax examples, which is provided definitively elsewhere. Is this really useful encyclopaedia content?

Bmordue (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed. And there are too many links. Needs cleanup. Justinc (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no direct links to syntax examples. Can I suggest that the syntax is re-added or a direct link to syntax examples is added (and labeled as such)
 * There are links, just not employed well. I would agree the cited sources in the "Syntax usage" section could be added as links on the named sources for that section. Then problem is solved. --Rootwarden (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

do not center columns
please, do not center colums, this makes them hard t oread — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.77.72 (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bold is not Strong, and Italic is not Emphasis
The format table reads "bold" and "italic" when the Textile examples shown are actually "strong" and "emphasis", respectively. Technically speaking, the correct Textile syntax for "bold" (  ) is double asterisks (e.g., **bold**), and the correct syntax for "italic" (  ) is double underscores (e.g., __italic__). There is a difference according to the W3C, and particularly how screen readers interpret the resulting markup. I think most people concerned with semantics and structured content would say use strong and emphasis, because they actually mean something in writing, they're not just presentation. So the syntax examples are fine, but the "bold" and "italic" wording needs changed. Rootwarden (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

what the what
was this article vandalized or is it just this bad from the beginning? needs HUGE cleanup!Dany0 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisions
I have made an attempt to improve the page a bit, but a few more iterations are undoubtedly needed. I've revised and sectioned copy, and removed many redundant external links. I've removed the syntax examples, which were excessive and made up most of the page before, in favor of the syntax help links. And I've added many missing references to support the unsupported claims. Do the changes warrant removing the "multiple issues" flag? Rootwarden (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The page looks a lot cleaner now and while I haven't gone through all the references they should be enough for verification. Some more information about the history and for the infobox might be nice, but the main issues have been resolved. I think the "multiple issues" can be removed. —Maths314 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Logo mark
There's a Textile logo mark. Seems to be the first legitimate effort to create one. That would fill-out the info box better. The License is a public domain Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Various options available. Rootwarden (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made some more page structuring edits, mainly with History stuff. Also added more details to the infobox (borrowed the one used on the Markdown page as a model), and included the logo mark. Rootwarden (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * However, the logo seems to be unofficial. It could be mentioned in a separate section, but I wouldn't include it as the official logo in the infobox if there is no statement from the original author of the language. —Maths314 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. Will take it out of the info box and leave the small mention in the history section. Rootwarden (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)