Live data from Hacker News

StrictMark: Markdown, Refactored

doc.replicated.cc

51–53 of 53 posts

Re: StrictMark: Markdown, Refactored

#51
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like this idea, but that means you need to be able to decide what the "lowest" level is at the beginning (i.e. I seldom use anything below .)

Well, nothing keeps you from still starting with ###, so you have two spare levels to go down to if needed (## and #).

Alternatively, that’s where the “negative” levels would come in (i.e. the .# levels above).

Re: StrictMark: Markdown, Refactored

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Optimizing for readers definitely excludes lists like: 2. 3. 5. 6. 1.

Tbf it’d be trivial to have a button/flag to fix it in the source, and a warning to notify the user. It’d might be debatable to do so automatically, but on demand there’s no issue (like words table of content update/warning).

But the current definition of “its always sequential, that’s it” means you could do it automatically without changing meaning. Whereas do-as-I-say is stuck with being unsafe, always

Re: StrictMark: Markdown, Refactored

#53
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What problem were you hoping to solve with this?

A reliable format for my docs, which is already well supported (and I want a Ragel parser because requirements). In the long run, I am a Decentralized Web guy, so making Markdown a proper language has its own value.

Your theoretical and well contexted overview of the Web, your mininal formatting overhead (no googles and 5000 cubicles), (single person in charge of content and formatting) view is essential not trivial.
Post reply on HN