Main problem with author's suggestion is that he mixes everything together, so he'll get into the markup version of DLL-hell.
E.g. How do I use relative links? Is {subdir Hello world} a relative link, a font-name, or a new and yet unsupported tag?
Html handles this: <a href='subdir'> versus <font name='subdir'> versus <subdir>...
Oh, and why support font names and colors directly in tags in 2012? He should support class names instead!
Why is "fontname from URL" hardcoded for Google fonts? Why not a generic syntax that handles whatever site you might want to use.
Why support simple macros without any support for formatting numbers and currency? Your server-site language should support this, so why send it to the browser?
Image (pic) elements are missing height/width, so we're back to the relayout flashes that the NCSA_Mosaic browser had whenever it loaded an image.
Exercise for the reader: let your editor remove one } by random. Figure out yourself where it's missing by just reading the source.
you can use the _style attribute with any element. For example {b_style="font-size:20;font-family:Courier New" content}. I intended it to work with other html attributes, so using multiple attributes would look like this {b_attr1='asdf'_attr2="asdf" content}. It would be just like html almost except for the quirky syntax. I only allow syntax for now because it's intended to be safe and I didn't want to allow things like onclick or anything javascript. Allowing a class attribute is also easy, but for now I didn't want to because the site I will be adding it to soon could use a previously defined class that's width 600 or something. Right now style is well controlled if you try to make things too wide or use something like display:none
E.g. How do I use relative links? Is {subdir Hello world} a relative link, a font-name, or a new and yet unsupported tag?
Html handles this: <a href='subdir'> versus <font name='subdir'> versus <subdir>...
Oh, and why support font names and colors directly in tags in 2012? He should support class names instead!
Why is "fontname from URL" hardcoded for Google fonts? Why not a generic syntax that handles whatever site you might want to use.
Why support simple macros without any support for formatting numbers and currency? Your server-site language should support this, so why send it to the browser?
Image (pic) elements are missing height/width, so we're back to the relayout flashes that the NCSA_Mosaic browser had whenever it loaded an image.
Exercise for the reader: let your editor remove one } by random. Figure out yourself where it's missing by just reading the source.