The wikitext problem with new HTML elements such as
I recently wrote about my interest in HTML5's
<details> element. One of the obvious potential places to use
it becomes well supported) is here on Wandering Thoughts;
not only is it the leading place where I create web content, but I
also love parenthetical asides (perhaps a little too much) and
<details> would be one way to make some of them less obtrusive.
Except that there is a little problem in the way, which is that
Wandering Thoughts isn't written in straight HTML but instead
in a wikitext dialect.
When you have a wik or in general any non-HTML document text that
is rendered down to HTML, using new HTML elements is necessarily a
two step process. First, you have to figure out what you're going
to sensibly use them for, which is the step everyone has to do.
But then you have a second step of figuring out how to represent
this new HTML element in your non-HTML document text, ideally in a
non-hacky way that reflects the resulting HTML structure and
requirements (for example, that
<details> is an inline 'flow'
element, not a block element, which actually surprised me when
I looked it up just now).
Some text markup languages allow you to insert arbitrary HTML, which
works but is a very blunt hammer; you're basically going to be
writing a mix of the markup language and HTML. There probably are
markup languages that have extra features to improve this, such as
letting you tell them something about the nesting rules and so on
for the new HTML elements you're using. My wikitext dialect deliberately has no HTML escapes at all, so I'd
have to add some sort of syntax for
<details> (or any other new
HTML element) before I could use it.
(Life is made somewhat simpler because
<details> is a flow element,
so it doesn't need any new wikitext block syntax and block parsing.
Life is made more difficult because you're going to want to be able
to put a lot of content with a lot of markup, links, and so on
<details>, which means that certain simplistic approaches
aren't good answers in the way they are for, for example,
At a sufficiently high level, this is a general tradeoff between having a single general purpose syntax as HTML does (okay, it has a few) and having a bunch of specialized syntaxes. The specialized syntaxes of wikitext have various advantages (for instance, it's a lot faster and easier for me to write this entry in DWikiText than it would be in HTML), but they also lack the easy, straightforward extensibility of the general purpose syntax. If you have a different syntax for everything, adding a new thing needs a new syntax. With HTML, you just need a name (and the semantics).
('Syntax' is probably not quite the right word here.)