Talk:Lightweight markup language

This page doesn't mention what it is that lightweight markup languages are simpler compared to. This is crucial for deciding what is a "lightweight markup language". The list has, for instance, BBCode, which I wouldn't deem a lightweight language by any measure.

I think lightweight and classic markup languages shouldn't be compared to define the lightweight ones. It would only make the definition more subjective. For example the BBCode article defines the language as a lightweight markup language but I only see it as a rehash of obsolete HTML elements, where the < and > symbols have been replaced by open and close brackets ([ and ]). Moreover defining a markup language as lightweight is very subjective. Some people think the wiki syntax of this encyclopedia is a lightweight markup language, but I only see it as a cryptic markup language where funky characters are used instead of cool XML-like elements. As written in the article : « Another application is for entry in web-based publishing, such as weblogs and wikis, where the input interface is a simple text box. ». It's because of technical limitations that lightweight markup languages appeared. But users would rather use an online WYSIWYG editor backed-up by a XML-based markup language, like XHTML for example. I only posted these remarks to show how inadequate comparing markup language types is. --Goa103 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, there was a merge proposal ongoing since July 2007 regarding Comparison of lightweight markup languages and List of lightweight markup languages, but little discussion ever took place and no consensus was reached. I propose instead that both of those articles be merged into this article to create a larger, more robust article that gives a more complete and encyclopedic view of lightweight markup languages. —Animated Cascade ^talk 08:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]