Textile & Is WebMake Alive? (Re: [WM] WindowsXP/Ofis2000 Egitim

[Justin Mason]

> Wes Meltzer wrote:
> 
>>No, but I'm glad to see someone actually on the list!
>>
>>Maybe we can get some activity. That would be nice.
>>
>>Here's a starter proposal: Has anyone besides me (a non-programmer) 
>>given any thought to how cool it would be to have a Textile 
>>text-formatting module for WebMake? (See 
>>http://www.textism.com/tools/textile/ if you're interested.) It's not 
>>that different from EtText, but it does have some neat new features.
>>
>>Or, alternately, I would be more than happy to help anyone update 
>>(again, from a non-programmatic standpoint) the syntax of EtText so 
>>that it is both XHTML-compliant and simple/elegant.
>>
>>Wes Meltzer :wm
>>
> Textile looks pretty cool.  I'd actually prefer to play with it rather 
> than EtText, probably because it's a little new and different :-)  I'd 
> love to see a Textile2HTML module for webmake!
> 
> Does anybody out there know whether Justin Mason is still working on 
> webmake?  I imagine he's been pretty busy with his SpamAssassin
> project,  considering that every mailhost I know uses it.  Is webmake
> itself still  alive, Justin?

Hi all --

yep, WebMake is definitely still alive -- as you say though, SA has thoroughly
taken over all my time, free and otherwise. :(

There's a few things in WM CVS that'd be nice to release; online editing by CGI is a 
bit neater and more usable now,  and there's a couple of minor bugfixes.  I've been *
using* WM quite a lot still, and adding minor tweaks here and there -- but no major 
work has happened in a while.

In terms of new stuff -- Textile support would be nifty (and probably easy enough if 
the Textile code is open-source-licensed and a perl module) -- although I bet we 
could just copy the good ideas into EtText anyway ;)

EtText generating proper XHTML would definitely be a good thing -- and probably 
not too hard.

And I agree, some of the syntax features of EtText are annoying me now.  In 
particular the "new" link style I added just makes no sense. doh.

I haven't given a whole lot of thought to fixing this, so feel free to pitch in!

Another thing I was hoping to do, if I ever got the tuits, would be to replace the 
current templating system in WM with one based on Template Toolkit; TTK is a better 
system in terms of scriptable stuff like if/while, and it's more widely used, so hopefully 
less buggy ;).  However the WM templating has some very handy features like 
dependency and metadata support, multiple templates in one file, distinction 
between content and templates, so some merging would have to be done.   So this 
is definitely one thing on the "big jobs if I get the chance" list.

All ideas/running code are welcome!

--j.