21–30 of 53 posts
The author is here, AMA.
What problem were you hoping to solve with this?
In the long run, I am a Decentralized Web guy, so making Markdown a proper language has its own value.
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.
Why are references limited to one symbol? It can just be more mnemonic to have `java_doc` than `j
Why only full reference links are allowed? It would be handy to have a shortcut for links without reference, and it's not like we're running out of symbols: `?[]` could be used for links without reference while being consistent with `![]`, which is used for transclusion
Why is it impossible to put backticks inside a code span?
What is there a `` in an example in the Lists section?
I really like the spirit of this markdown alternative
From the spec: > No double symbols, i.e. strong not *strong*. I understand the rationale. But, this is immediately no longer Markdown. "It's 'Markdown, Refactored!'" If "refactored" means "incompatible," sure? I guess? But still: incompatible. "So what?" Good question, imaginary interlocutor. Here's so what: one of Markdown's defining features, love or it hate it, is that it deliberately doesn't make you choose betwe…
For ~full MarkDown support there is CommonMark code.
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'd feel an obligation to keep things in reference order, so one more thing to think about while I'm working.
On another note, I'm interested in this idea of reusing image links to preview CSVs and other formats. (graphviz comes to mind) Do you have any examples of this being used in a document and the tooling to stitch it together?
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…
- 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 headings, and higher-level headings are only introduced as the document evolves. Because I don’t know how many levels I’ll end up with, starting with a single # for the lowest level would work better.
- Lower-level headings are more frequent than higher-level headings, so having to type less for them makes sense, as well as reducing the likelihood to get the # count wrong (because you usually know what is a bottom-level heading, or the next one up, and you don’t have to know how many levels there are overall).
The existing convention mirrors the numbering levels of numbered headings, but I don’t find that visually convincing. It also matches the HTML h1-h6 elements of course, but nowadays that should be less of a concern.
Another thought is that maybe the headings hierarchy should be unlimited in both directions, so that you are never forced to shift all headings. One possibility to achieve that could be:
### even higher level
## higher level
# base level
.# sub level
.## sub-sub level
.### sub-sub-sub level
The author is here, AMA.
Why are headers limited to four levels? Do they have to be always padded with spaces? Why are references limited to one symbol? It can just be more mnemonic to have `java_doc` than `j Why only full reference links are allowed? It would be handy to have a shortcut for links without reference, and it's not like we're running out of symbols: `?[]` could be used for links without reference while being consistent with `![…
The terrible HTML comment hack is straight from the CommonMark spec... it solved a Markdown syntax issue... hope to kill it somehow.
The author is here, AMA.
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.