101–110 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s truly one of the best compliments I’ve ever received along my dev journey. Thank you.
I was just reflecting on what I saw/thought! But sure, take it as a compliment, the website and branding are amazing, I'm (positively) jealous of how good they reflect on the product, congrats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used (and will continue to use) most of those. Quick rules of thumb: - markdown is .txt with just a tiny bit of syntactic sugar/syntax highlighting, and you can export it to pdf or html - quarto is markdown-but-I-want-to-execute-code-blocks-inside - typst is latex but modern, with 90% less cruft and 10% less functionality (academia, hating everything modern, will also hate you if you use typst) - pandoc is how you…
I'm sorry, what exactly is the issue with typst?
I would really like to see a comparison of all these tools/markup languages: - MyST - Pandoc - Quarkdown - Quarto - Typst Quarto and pandoc both use Pandoc Markdown (and so does https://www.zettlr.com/ ). But Quarkdown and Typst offer programmable markup languages like LaTeX (or HTML + Javascript). It seems the winner for the title official LaTeX successor is still not decided.
Quarkdown is a step in the right direction. One step closer to HTML. Tough call. I think Markdown is not an authoring tool at all. In fact if you read through the changelog of GitHub Markdown, you will read a very detailed critique of the shortcomings of MD. It isn’t a specification. This is MD’s biggest weakness as well as strength. ## can be a subheading or heading level 2. How about an empty line between paragraph…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it’s an upgrade of markdown, you should have called it "markup".
This sounds to me like it might benefit from some sort of "hypertext" functionality to allow for easy linking of documents
Maybe call it something like that really popular, Java language? But of course, have it share no concepts with Java, because that would be too straightforward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you consider "fixing" the bold syntax on v3? I have always believed that instead of **bold** and *italic*, it should be *bold* and _italic_. That extra asterisk is a poor design decision in markdown. It really makes it inconvenient to edit Markdown on a phone or tablet.
It always bugs me that _underscore_ is the syntax for italics rather than underline. I’m sure back in the old days of READMEs, long before markdown was a thing, the conventions were this: /italics/ _underline_ *bold*
As an SSG user, I prefer the cleanest markdown as input, and putting all the formatting details into the CSS. E.g. I don't need `.abstract`, the CSS will format the first paragraph as an abstract without me asking explicitly. OTOH I see this as a way to produce more rich self-contained documents. There's no CSS, but there's a bunch of predefined styling options. I can't help but see the early HTML in it. HTML 1 did n…
This is cool. I think you'll find a lot of skepticism here for anything that tries to significantly alter markdown. I understand some of the criticism that functions can degrade source readability if overused. Sometimes Turing incompleteness is a virtue. But as far as adding functions to markdown goes, this is probably among the cleanest designs out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you consider "fixing" the bold syntax on v3? I have always believed that instead of **bold** and *italic*, it should be *bold* and _italic_. That extra asterisk is a poor design decision in markdown. It really makes it inconvenient to edit Markdown on a phone or tablet.
It always bugs me that _underscore_ is the syntax for italics rather than underline. I’m sure back in the old days of READMEs, long before markdown was a thing, the conventions were this: /italics/ _underline_ *bold*
I don't know how well RFC 1855 reflected common practice, though. It might be worthwhile to check the rendering code in clients like tin and mutt.