Template:Sc/doc/Smallcaps and sc

Comparison of Template:Smallcaps and Template:sc
At the root, is an extension of  :   is exactly equivalent output-wise to  ). The differences arise when using the segmented syntax of  :


 * Thesis - Advantages of over


 * is WYSIWYG for the copy-pasted text (or degraded text in older browsers, or text snippet in search engines), no more Easter Eggs: output will still give at least "LORD" or "Lord GOD" or "MAO Zedong" or "BC"/"AD" – whereas Smallcaps outputs "Lord" and "Lord God" (theological errors) or "Mao Zedong" (loss of surname disambiguation) or "bc"/"ad" (incorrect).
 * does not have the browser-dependent problems with uppercasing diacritics: most of the capitalization is done server-side by the dependable (and if an error was found, it could be easily fixed in a centralized way by fixing the MediaWiki software).


 * Antithesis - Advantages of over


 * has a simpler call syntax, whereas using beyond a synonym for  requires understanding the segment paradigm, especially on extreme cases:
 * José
 * José


 * Synthesis - Possible magic word

However, the only advantage of is because it relies on the browser parsing the text letter-by-letter, whereas a template such as  cannot, and thus need to be told what to do with successive segments.


 * A server-side implementation of a new magic word (on the model of  and  ) would make the syntax easy again such as ,  ,  ,  ,  , or   (parsing the text based on upper/lower case, as the CSS  does in the browser).
 * Segments would become optional, and available for when additional control is wanted on the copy-paste/degradation output, such as  would do).