201–210 of 328 posts
Most md editors don't support collapsing or folding sections, even though they could. VSCode had this feature where indentation is used as a simple hint to support collapsible sections, but md treats indentation as a code hint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you want to use asterisks to mark footnotes.* As soon as you add a second footnote,** you're in trouble because your asterisks disappear and everything between them turns bold. * I had to escape all of these asterisks. ** I see this happen fairly often to people's comments here.
Disappearing asterisks is just terrible UX. It should turn bold but keep the asterisk displayed so you can still edit as normal. The bullet point problem is fixed by only bolding when the asterisks are on either end of word characters.
This is just terrible UI, why do you need garbage marks when you already have bold? And you can edit "as normal" if you like, but that only requires displaying asterisks during that tiny % of time you edit the word, not all the time when you read it or edit something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite sure I understand the connection.
I see one, but then maybe I am just seeing things. The wikipedia page about "worse is better" re: software linked above states: It refers to the argument that software quality does not necessarily increase with functionality: that there is a point where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability. Copernicus' idea about money has a similar structure - "better"…
I always advocate for XML. While Markdown is like "a car in any color as long as it's black", XML is a) exactly what you need and b) as precise as you need it, and also c) not more precise than necessary. We all need headers and paragraphs, right. But I might want file listings. Or command-line snippets with my own color coding and marks. Or C declarations and precise references to them in text. Or todos. Or bibliogr…
And save for two extra words and 5 extra symbols, which in many cases (like config files) draw out the actual content
> XML is a) exactly what you need and b) as precise as you need it,
So how can I precisely get rid of that noise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disappearing asterisks is just terrible UX. It should turn bold but keep the asterisk displayed so you can still edit as normal. The bullet point problem is fixed by only bolding when the asterisks are on either end of word characters.
> It should turn bold but keep the asterisk displayed so you can still edit as normal. This is just terrible UI, why do you need garbage marks when you already have bold? And you can edit "as normal" if you like, but that only requires displaying asterisks during that tiny % of time you edit the word, not all the time when you read it or edit something else.
This sentence is a great example of why such a pointless debate continues. Don't disparage HTML as "only" a markup language; it's a markup language. That's no 'better' or 'worse' than a programming language, just different.
This website, at least in dark mode, doesn't have any visible indication when text is selected. ... Which is additionally frustrating, since the links at the bottom aren't actually links (so you have to select them to copy and paste into your address bar)
I'm half wondering if they're using a very strange CMS to publish this blog. The fact that they seemingly cannot use the correct double-quote character in their code blocks lends a bit of support to this theory.