I don't mind it, but I much prefer explicit markup for links, such as [[link]] (which is a pretty common one).
Each wiki has it's own markup language, which means I have to learn and remember which style to use each time I switch around apps and I get my methods confused often.
True. But some do use more common markups such as Markdown or Creole.
Several of the most recommended notetaking apps (Zim, TiddlyWiki, OutWikier, etc.) are wiki-oriented, which is why I'm still looking.
I've used TiddlyWiki myself, and did like it for a while, particularly that everything was in one file and that all one needed was a browser - that made it very portable. But the fact that the underlying format wasn't plain text, but complicated HTML+Javascript code, that was what made me decide to stop using it eventually. I'm very much a plain text fan.
I notice you mention Markdown. There's one wiki I use, IkiWiki, which has Markdown as its default format (though it has plugins for others). All the data is saved in separate plain text files, one for each page. It's unusual among wikis in that it is a "wiki compiler". That means that it generates all the wiki pages as plain HTML pages, and updates them when a change is made, rather than having to run on a web server. Mind you, if you want to update pages through the browser, there needs to be a web server, but you don't absolutely need one... because one can also update the source pages directly, using your favourite editor. Also, while it isn't required, one can use a revision control system such as git, as part of the back-end, which means that you can go back and get earlier versions, which is always handy as a backup. Also, with git, one can do editing on a laptop and then come back and "push" the changes to your desktop (if you have both, that is).
There is, I admit, a learning curve, and I can't attest to whether or not it is too difficult or involves too much, because I do this kind of stuff for a living...
Let's look at your list, and see how IkiWiki does:
Markdown editing - yes
Plain text file saving - yes
Keyboard shortcuts - don't know
attach images and links - yes
taggings - yes
categories (in addition to tagging)* - I'm not sure what the difference is between tagging and categories
Dropbox sync* - no, but with git it works well with Sparkleshare
export html,pdf* - yes, HTML by default; pdf I wrote a plugin for, but I can't remember if it's in my public plugins
fluid calendar functionality (being able to store by date, or not) - don't know
multiple journals/books - I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can put things in separate directories, in as deep a hierarchy as you want (unlike some wikis which have no hierarchy at all)
spellcheck - only if you have spellcheck in your favourite editor
unicode - I can't remember
Another place you might look - if you are familiar with the Vim editor - is a Vim plugin. I think there are a couple of wiki-like ones, but I have not used them myself, so I can't say much about them. But all of them use plain text format (with varying levels of specialized markup, of course). Ah, forget it, you're an emacs user I see. Changing over to Vim would be too frustrating for you, I think.
However, it probably would be worth investigating plugins for emacs - there are so many plugins for it, surely someone has written something that would be close to what you want?
no subject
I don't mind it, but I much prefer explicit markup for links, such as [[link]] (which is a pretty common one).
Each wiki has it's own markup language, which means I have to learn and remember which style to use each time I switch around apps and I get my methods confused often.
True. But some do use more common markups such as Markdown or Creole.
Several of the most recommended notetaking apps (Zim, TiddlyWiki, OutWikier, etc.) are wiki-oriented, which is why I'm still looking.
I've used TiddlyWiki myself, and did like it for a while, particularly that everything was in one file and that all one needed was a browser - that made it very portable. But the fact that the underlying format wasn't plain text, but complicated HTML+Javascript code, that was what made me decide to stop using it eventually. I'm very much a plain text fan.
I notice you mention Markdown. There's one wiki I use, IkiWiki, which has Markdown as its default format (though it has plugins for others). All the data is saved in separate plain text files, one for each page. It's unusual among wikis in that it is a "wiki compiler". That means that it generates all the wiki pages as plain HTML pages, and updates them when a change is made, rather than having to run on a web server. Mind you, if you want to update pages through the browser, there needs to be a web server, but you don't absolutely need one... because one can also update the source pages directly, using your favourite editor. Also, while it isn't required, one can use a revision control system such as git, as part of the back-end, which means that you can go back and get earlier versions, which is always handy as a backup. Also, with git, one can do editing on a laptop and then come back and "push" the changes to your desktop (if you have both, that is).
There is, I admit, a learning curve, and I can't attest to whether or not it is too difficult or involves too much, because I do this kind of stuff for a living...
Let's look at your list, and see how IkiWiki does:
Another place you might look - if you are familiar with the Vim editor - is a Vim plugin. I think there are a couple of wiki-like ones, but I have not used them myself, so I can't say much about them. But all of them use plain text format (with varying levels of specialized markup, of course). Ah, forget it, you're an emacs user I see. Changing over to Vim would be too frustrating for you, I think.
However, it probably would be worth investigating plugins for emacs - there are so many plugins for it, surely someone has written something that would be close to what you want?