41–50 of 53 posts
The author is here, AMA.
How fundamental is the requirement that all the "block stuff" be exactly four characters wide? The parts that were the strangest for me are that link references can only contain a single unicode character and that block quotes are ">" plus three spaces, instead of ">" plus one space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lists are one of markdown's weak points though with numbered lists completely ignoring the numbers
Thats optimized for never having to renumber yoir lists as you edit your document. I would hate to have to change 30 numbers because i want to move an item from last to first.
2.
3.
5.
6.
1.Reference links as opposed to inline links is a huge plus, but like most others here I'm puzzled at the single-char restriction. I tend to restructure documents often, writing things as they come into my head and moving pieces around to better convey my message. With named references, I can simply alphabetize them at the bottom and forget about them while I move sections around. With single-char identifiers though, I…
(I'm not even sure I'm joking)
There are dozens of proper HTML engines. Implementing a proper DOM and CSS is the hard part, which is why we have few full-featured browsers.
Markdown was engineered to be flexible _on purpose_ because it was designed for writers and readers, not programmers. Writers are less likely to care about what symbol means "bulleted list item", as long as anything that makes sense for it, just works. It's a mistake to think of Markdown as a programming language, or a "formal grammar". That being said, if it works for you go for it...
The author is here, AMA.
What about making some of my code bold?
markdown is meant for rendering .....
it should be as flexible as possible to write content....not restricted. I get the pain points of the devs ... never was the point of markdown. I feel like this engineers a new problem.... by removing an old solution
Markdown was engineered to be flexible _on purpose_ because it was designed for writers and readers, not programmers. Writers are less likely to care about what symbol means "bulleted list item", as long as anything that makes sense for it, just works. It's a mistake to think of Markdown as a programming language, or a "formal grammar". That being said, if it works for you go for it...
Markdown was engineered to be flexible _on purpose_ because it was designed for writers and readers, not programmers. Writers are less likely to care about what symbol means "bulleted list item", as long as anything that makes sense for it, just works. It's a mistake to think of Markdown as a programming language, or a "formal grammar". That being said, if it works for you go for it...
lists are one of markdown's weak points though with numbered lists completely ignoring the numbers
It's a good effort, but I'm afraid it isn't a good fit for me, three things stand out: 1) the use of # rather than underline for headings. That why I feel you loose the beauty of the source form - headers disappear visually without a smart editor - if you demand a smart/wysiwyg editor anyway... Might just use a sgml/xml/html subset. 2) one symbol references. This strikes me as overly limiting - why not alphanumeric s…
I always felt that the number of #s should increase with higher-level rather than with lower-level headings, for multiple reasons: - More #s mean a larger visual footprint, which would be more appropriate for higher-level headings (cf. larger font size in rich-text rendering, and of course the = and - underlines). This is what bothers me the most. - I tend to write documents bottom-up, starting with lowest-level head…