I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – the best syntax you can use for your wiki is HTML, or probably better XHTML. It’s a defined standard with a wide range of excellent WYSIWYG editors, it’s well known, very portable and saves you from having to write a converter to display your wiki pages.

David Van Couvering is the latest to complain about incompatible wiki syntax and he’s certainly not alone in his frustrations. People don’t want to have to learn yet another crazy wiki syntax, they want an intuitive interface that just lets them write their content. HTML provides far more flexibility than any wiki syntax, particularly around tables, which makes presenting data a lot easier.

The only real drawback of HTML I’ve seen is if someone needs to go outside of what the WYSIWYG editor can do, or if they’re using an exceptionally unusual browser that the editor doesn’t support, they are confronted by all those angle brackets. Of course, if people need to go beyond wiki syntax they just plain can’t and wiki syntax isn’t really that much better.

The best answer I can provide to that is to pick an editor that supports as many browsers as possible and with a good source view. Most editors have a fair bit of work to do on their source view because most users don’t use it. Despite that, I’m beginning to think it may be an advantage to have a top notch source view just to counter the argument that HTML source looks ugly compared to wiki syntax. If we can improve the source editor to the point where it’s a joy to use, we might get more wikis to start using HTML instead of inventing another non-standard syntax that locks it’s users in.

See also: Wiki Syntax Considered Harmful