181–190 of 351 posts
Most people don't want the simple websites you could render in basic Markdown, that's why we don't have more of them already. How many of the top 1000 websites are a column of text and nothing else?
If most people wanted simple websites, they would write them with a WYSIWYG editor, they would not learn Markdown.
Markdown is a convenient but deeply limited markup language with only a small subset of html's features. And yes, limitations are good because we want documents not web apps, etc, etc, but I mean "images can't have captions" limited, "navigation bars don't exist" limited. Actual important features of html don't exist in markdown, which is why almost every markdown platform ends up adding extensions and shortcodes. Wh…
The fatal flaw of HTML (and XML for that matter) is that the tags have the same visual weight as the text they're delimiting, which makes for a sense of clutter even in your minimal example. Markdown really scores here, by having a pleasing plain text representation as a goal from the outset, and I've love to see it used more widely for web pages. I'd also love to see it more widely used for offline reading, too - th…
Page Title
Page Title
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
adipiscing elit. Ut ac lorem ut massa
euismod vestibulum.
Nullam rutrum blandit eleifend. Aenean a
varius diam. Morbi sodales velit nunc, vel
vestibulum lorem tempus sodales.
Page Title
Page Title
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
adipiscing elit. Ut ac lorem ut massa
euismod vestibulum.
Nullam rutrum blandit eleifend. Aenean a
varius diam. Morbi sodales velit nunc, vel
vestibulum lorem tempus sodales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
—I’d say it’s the other way around isn’t it? Wouldn’t Markdown be a subset of HTML, since all markdown can be expressed in HTML but not all HTML can be expressed in Markdown?— Edit: Markdown can contain HTML that gets meaningfully interpreted as markup as well. I’d also say HTML is not difficult to write, even for someone new to the concept. I don’t think anyone making their GeoCities homepage was too strained learni…
As far as I’m aware, you can write any HTML in Markdown, and it will be rendered normally. So Markdown can indeed contain any and all HTML. HTML can’t contain Markdown at all - a ### in HTML does nothing but a hello in Markdown does exactly what you expect it to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal preference would be GitHub flavored markdown, since as a coder it includes a lot of very useful non-standard markups. The compromises it makes on the non-deterministic markup elements are acceptable as well.
I think this makes sense. Many of the GitHub readmes are in markdown already, so people are quite familiar with it and there might already be an open source package that renders it out…
FWIW, just a couple of weeks ago we started doing that for a new sqlite subproject: https://sqlite.org/wasm With the exception of one page, all of them are markdown, rendered on demand by the Fossil SCM. The one exception is an HTML file, which we need in order to host a small JS application.
When you say rendered on demand, you mean by the client, as in a page request? Why not just rerender to HTML on developer change? Genuinely curious why rendering on demand is preferred in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fatal flaw of HTML (and XML for that matter) is that the tags have the same visual weight as the text they're delimiting, which makes for a sense of clutter even in your minimal example. Markdown really scores here, by having a pleasing plain text representation as a goal from the outset, and I've love to see it used more widely for web pages. I'd also love to see it more widely used for offline reading, too - th…
> tags have the same visual weight as the text they're delimiting IMO this issue should and can be easily solved by editor/viewer by rendering tags with lower contrast.
That said, the idea that this somehow changes any dynamic on the web are mere fantasies. The masses self-publish on social networks. On their phones. And not even that, as most largely lure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fatal flaw of HTML (and XML for that matter) is that the tags have the same visual weight as the text they're delimiting, which makes for a sense of clutter even in your minimal example. Markdown really scores here, by having a pleasing plain text representation as a goal from the outset, and I've love to see it used more widely for web pages. I'd also love to see it more widely used for offline reading, too - th…
Markdown is undoubtedly more readable, but HTML can be more readable than most people make it. And considering that the ultimate goal is to wind up with a layed-out, styled document, its capabilities in that regard are just plain-old more important, especially since markdown isn't going to replace WYSIWYG editors any time soon, and almost everybody who needs to know HTML can learn it relatively easily. Browsers colla…
Markdown is a convenient but deeply limited markup language with only a small subset of html's features. And yes, limitations are good because we want documents not web apps, etc, etc, but I mean "images can't have captions" limited, "navigation bars don't exist" limited. Actual important features of html don't exist in markdown, which is why almost every markdown platform ends up adding extensions and shortcodes. Wh…
The fatal flaw of HTML (and XML for that matter) is that the tags have the same visual weight as the text they're delimiting, which makes for a sense of clutter even in your minimal example. Markdown really scores here, by having a pleasing plain text representation as a goal from the outset, and I've love to see it used more widely for web pages. I'd also love to see it more widely used for offline reading, too - th…