4 ms·
Tables in RST are far more difficult than in Markdown; you have to essentially draw the table you want. In both, it is difficult to have a block of code with o
by jdeisenberg 10y ago
Tables in RST are far more difficult than in Markdown; you have to essentially draw the table you want.
In both, it is difficult to have a block of code with one line in bold, or italicized for emphasis. (The same seems to hold for asciidoc.)
Which is why I eventually gravitate back to HTML. (See https://github.com/oreillymedia/HTMLBook https://github.com/oreillymedia/HTMLBook as well - full disclosure: I have done writing for O'Reilly.)
- dredmorbius 10y agoThere's composing in a lightweight markup language, then moving to something heavier-duty. HTML, LaTeX, DocBook, whatevs. The lightweight language is an authoring tool, but it shouldn't get in the way of full expression as needs be. (Markdown allows integrated HTML, though not all Markdown implementations / uses provide that, particularly online Web tools. Which are horribly inconsistent, IME.)
- slgeorge 10y agoFor standard RST tables I use vim-table-mode (https://github.com/dhruvasagar/vim-table-mode https://github.com/dhruvasagar/vim-table-mode) which is fantastic as it automates RST or markdown tables. There are some other RST table types: a. List table: Pretty simple to use (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html#list-table http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html...) b. CSV table Supposed to be used for CSV imports I guess but I've never used it (http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html#id4 http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/directives.html...)